linguistics - instituto lenguas vivas bariloche – discourse analysis 2 unit ii introduction...

1010

Discourse analysis Linguistics

Unit II

2013

Linguistics – Discourse Analysis

2

Unit II

Introduction

REFLECTION

1. What do you understand by the

functional approach to second language

teaching?

2. What are language functions?

3. Are they taught in the English

classroom?

Read the following text on these issues.

There are two main approaches to the study of grammar: the functional approach,

based on language functions, and the traditional approach which is based on grammar forms.

The functional approach starts from a system of meaning (functions) and relates how these

functions are expressed through the language's grammar. Put it in other terms, the functional

approach starts with meaning and works towards grammatical form for expressing this meaning

rather than starting with the grammatical form and working towards meaning.

On the other hand, the traditional formal approach to language focuses mainly on

grammatical form or structure and then comments on the meaning these forms express.

The functional approach has interesting implications for second language teaching,

specifically by highlighting the distinction between form and function, a distinction not always

clearly made in other approaches.

By identifying language functions and the many grammatical ways of expressing these

functions, it becomes clear that the relationship between form and meaning is not one-to-one.


3

If we make our students aware of the functions of language they will find it possible to

focus on the meaning that they wish to get and then to choose the proper grammatical forms

best suited for the context rather than focusing exclusively on grammar.

We should like to bring into prominence the influence of the functional approach in second

language acquisition, which often for historical reasons, has been neglected.

The following material was taken from chapter 3 of Guy Cook’s book : ‘Language Teaching-

Discourse’ and it sheds some light on this approach

Fun c t i on s o f l an gua g e

We must point out that although formal links reinforce the unity of discourse, they cannot, on

their own create it. Look at the following examples given by Cook:

A. It’s a mystery to me, how the conjuror sawed that woman in half.

B. Well, Jane was the woman he did it to. So presumably she must know.

It would be a mistake to suppose that formal links, and nothing else, create the unity

between these sentences. We can see this clearly if we replace the third sentence with another,

so that the sequence reads:

A. It’s a mystery to me, how the conjuror sawed that woman in half.

B. Well, Jane was the woman he did it to. So presumably she must be Japanese.

Here, there are also formal links (so, she, etc.) but it is not clear how the sequence makes

sense. Of course, they might form part of a discourse, and if we stretch our imaginations we

could come up with a situation in which they do ; but this will not be by virtue of the words “so”

and “she”, but of some other information about the context.


4

As we can see from the above examples, formal links between sentences are not enough to

account for our feeling that a stretch of language is discourse. They are neither necessary nor

sufficient, and in brief spoken exchanges, it is quite common to come across sentences that are

almost entirely bare of them.

Now do the act ivity suggested by

the author: For each exchange, supp ly a

context in which it makes sense. Notice

that there are no formal l inks in any of

these exchanges, but they are

nevertheless easy to understand. Each

one could form a complete discourse.

The speaker A says: “the window is open.”

A second speaker may answer with a different response depending on the situational

context, here we have the ones provided by Cook as examples:

1. Go back to sleep, will you?

2. Don’t worry.

3. My job’s staking boxes, mate.

4. By Jove, Holmes! It was the gardener!

Let´s work on the first one together:

A- The window is open.

B- Go back to sleep, will you?

Context: It’s three in the morning, there’s a couple in bed. The wife wakes up out of cold.

She says to her husband “the window is open” but he, half asleep, answers: “go back to sleep,

will you?

Please, notice that we didn´t have the need to add more utterances to create the context.

Only the two exchanges with no help of cohesive devices are enough to contextualize the

situation. Work on the other three, be creative, think who can be saying “the window is open”,

who is answering “don´t worry”, why that person is giving that response. It will also help to have


5

a clear context if you imagine and state where they are, how they are related, when this is

happening, why, etc. And remember, don´t add more speech! Good luck!

--------------------------------------

These examples above are invented; but one does not have to look far to find such

exchanges in real life. Clearly, if we need to explain some interpretations we will need more

than our list of cohesive devices.

Thus, knowledge of the functional approach to language is necessary. As learners and

future teachers of English we assume you are already familiar with functionalism.

In this subject you will, surely enlarge your knowledge about the functional approach.

Reading about such concepts as speech acts, illocutionary acts, semantic roles and other

concepts will probably contribute to this.

(Adapted from: Language Teaching- Discourse, Guy Cook ;OUP, 1996, pages 22-23)

How m ean ing is creat ed an d un ders t ood ?

Pragmatics, the science concerned with the study of meaning looks behind the literal,

formal meaning of what is said or written, and considers what the sender of a message intends

to achieve with it, that is to say it tries to understand its function.

It has, consequently, more to do with the analysis of what people mean by their

utterances than with what those words or phrases might mean by themselves.

Stop for a moment and try to answer this question:

W hat k in ds of rul es en ab l e peopl e t o in fer t he fun ct ion of w hat is

s aid from i t s l i t eral , form al m ean ing ?


6

In order to discover how such inferences are made, we will need firstly to examine the

range of possible functions of language, and secondly to try to understand how people correctly

interpret them. Understanding this connection between the form and the function of the

language, will help us to explain how stretches of language, can be coherent without being

cohesive; it will also help us as language teachers to provide students with a better sense of

contextual meaning. We cannot assume that these interpretations will be made in the same way

in all the cultures and in all languages, so understanding how interpretation proceeds in the

culture of the language we are teaching is crucial if we are to help learners to make their words

functions in the way that they intend.

(Adapted from Language Teaching- Discourse, Guy Cook ;OUP, 1996, page 24)

Research work: find out the difference

between what an utterance is and what a

sentence is. You may use whatever source is at

your hand.

Let us now read some further concepts about functions.

If you were asked off hand what the function of language is what would you reply? Look

at the answers below and see which one you agree with most:

to send information

to tell other people your thoughts

to convey your feelings

others

Cook says that people are not as simplistic as this; even a moment of reflection leads to

the conclusion that language has many more functions. Nevertheless it is true, in the adult and

public world at least, that this function that language has of transmitting information, its

referential function, is considered the most important. To abuse it, by sending false information,

is usually regarded as wrong, and can, in certain circumstances, incur the punishment or

imprisonment or a fine. Yet, it is by no means the only, or the first, function of language in

human life. In the world of the infant and parent the referential function of language often takes

a subordinate role to others. There is little the four-year-old child can tell his or her parents that

they do not know already, for they share the child’s world almost entirely. The same is true in

other intimate relationships. Some conversations of couples have scant informational content.


7

And even in the wider social world of adult intercourse, language clearly has many more

functions than simply sending information.

(Taken from: Language Teaching- Discourse, Guy Cook ;OUP, 1996, pages 25-26)

You hear one side of a telephone call in a

foreign language. The speaker says: ‘ tak. . . tak. . . tak. . .pravda? . . . tak. . . ’ what do you

think the function of these words is and what are their

English equivalents?

Is it easy to classify language functions?

There have been many, sometimes conflicting attempts to do so. One of the clearest

and most influential was formulated by the linguist Roman Jakobson (1960), and further

developed by Hymes (1962). The scheme proceeds by first identifying the elements of

communication, as follows:

The a ddresser : The person who o r ig ina tes the message . Th is is usua l ly

the same as the pe rson who is send ing the message , bu t no t a lways, as

in the case o f messengers, spokespeop le , and town cr ier s .

The a ddressee : The person to whom the message is addressed . Th is is

usua l ly the pe rson who rece ives the message , bu t no t necessar i ly so , as

in the case o f in te r cep ted le t ter s , bugged te lephone ca l ls , and eaves

d ropp ing .

The c han n el : The med ium through wh ich the message t rave ls : sound

waves, marks on paper , te lephone wi res, word processo r screens.


8

The messa g e fo rm: The pa r t icu la r g rammat ica l and lex ica l cho ices o f the

message .

The t o pi c : The in fo rma t ion car r ied in the message . Bas ica l ly , wha t the

message is abou t .

The c o de: The language o r d ia lec t , for examp le , Swed ish , Yorksh i re ,

Eng l ish , Semaphore , Br i t i sh S ign Language, Japanese .

The set t i n g : The soc ia l o r phys ica l con text.

Le t ´s f ind the e lemen ts o f commun ica t ion in the fo l lowing d ia logue :

A: Dr. Peterson's office. How may I help you?

B: I'd like to make an appointment to see the doctor.

A: Certainly, are you ill at the moment?

B: Yes, I'm not feeling very well.

A: Do you have a fever, or any other symptoms?

B: Yes, I have a slight fever and aches and pains.

A: OK, Dr. Peterson can see you tomorrow. Can you come in the morning?

B: Yes, tomorrow morning is fine.

A: How about 10 o'clock?

B: Yes, 10 o'clock is fine.

A: May have your name?

B: Yes, it's David Lain.


9

A: Have you seen Dr. Peterson before?

B: Yes, I had a physical exam last year.

A: Yes, here you are. OK, I've scheduled for ten o'clock tomorrow morning.

B: Thank you.

A: Drink plenty of warm fluids and get a good night's sleep!

B: Thank you. I'll do my best. Goodbye.

A: Goodbye.

Elements of communication

Addresser: At first, you may think that the secretary is the addressor here

because she is the first one to actually utter the first words.

However, she is not the one who opens the channel. By dialing a

number and making the phone rings on the other side, David Lain

is already communicating. Later, as the dialogue progresses, the

secretary takes on a more dominant role in the interaction; we can

say that she takes over the role of the addressor.

Addressee: Same explanation, but inverted.

Channel: That is the medium used to communicate, in this case, we can say

is the telephone wire.

Message form: According to the lexical and grammatical choices of the speaker,

we can say that we have a structured and neutral (maybe more

formal than informal) dialogue, with a predominant use of

questions and short answers.

Topic: Making and appointment with the doctor


10

The code: English spoken/oral language

The setting: Physical context: (time and place) We may have to physical

context: First, David Lain´s house, though we don´t have explicit

clue about it, we can assume he is calling from home. However, he

may be calling from his work or another place. On the other hand,

we have the receptionist room at the doctor´s. We can also draw

some implications about the time, the call took place during

daylight, probably late in the afternoon, since she is giving him

some advice about drinking liquids and resting well.

Social context: In this aspect we will just focus on how the

participants are related. This is an important variable since it will

determine the speakers’ linguistics choices. In the dialogue we are

analyzing, we can say that they are just acquaintances. They are

being polite with each other. And we can also mention that the

secretary is in a more dominant role since she is the one providing

a service to a person “in need”.

Take a text book used to teach English,

choose from it a short dialogue. Attempt to

analyse each of the elements of communication in

it. This means that you will be providing a

possible context to the dialogue. I am eager to

see your findings!!

Macro-f unc t i ons are then establ i shed, each f ocusing at ten t i on upon one

e lem ent :


11

1. The m ot iv e f unct i on: comm unicat i ng i nner sta tes and em ot i ons of the

addresser .

2 . The d i rect iv e f unct i on : seek ing to af fect the behav iour of the

addressee.

3 . The phat i c f unct i on : openning the channel or check ing that i t i s

work ing. The use of such phrases as ‘n i ce day to day ’ , or ‘how do you

do’ i s charac ter i zed by l ack of any i nf orm at iv e content and i s

i n tended to l i nk people and m ake the coex istence peacef u l and

p leasant . The phat i c use of l anguage i s charac ter i st i c m ainl y of

speech, howev er , i n cer tai n t ypes of wr i t i ng i t can al so be not i ced,

as i n l e t ters f or ex am ple, where the beginning Dear S i r /Madam and

ending Yours fa i thfu l ly a l so serv e that purpose.

4 . The poet i c f unct i on : i n whi ch the part i cular f orm chosen i s the

essence of the message. Here, the word poet i c does not ref er to the

abi l i t y to wr i te poet ry, but the abi l i t y to m anipulate l anguage i n a

c reat iv e way. W i th the use of j okes and m etaphors we can p lay wi th

words and m eanings sim ply for j oy .

5 . The ref erent i a l f unct i on : car ryi ng i nf orm at i on.

6 . The m etal i ngui st i c f unc t i on : f ocusing at tent ion upon the code i t se l f ,

t o cl ar i f y i t or renegociate i t . Al l we are reading r i ght now has a

l argel y m etal i ngui st i c f unc t i on.

7 . The contex tual f unct i on : c reat i ng a par t i cu lar k i nd of communicat i on.

Each element of communicat ion

corresponds to a funct ion, For example,

the code element corresponds to the

metal inguist ic funct ion . See i f you are

ab le to match the rest !

What do you consider to be the most

l ikely functions of the fo l lowing?

Is i t possible to assign one function to

each, or we can notice some wi th mixed

function? How might the function of each

ut terance vary accord ing to the context?


12

Dear Sir or Madam....

Fred Astaire’s dead.

Workers of the world.

You make me sick.

The court is now in session.

What do you mean by this?

Well, I’ll be damned!

Here’s Miss Julie.

Microfunctions and functional language teaching

I f we accept Jakobson’s and Hym es’ , or any sim i l ar, categori zat i on of

l anguage i n to a sm al l num ber of m acro-f unct i ons, we might then go on to

subdiv i de each f unc t i on and spec i f y m ore del i cate categori es, or mic ro -

f unct i ons. A breakdown of the d i rect iv e f unc t i on, f or ex am ple, might l ook

som eth ing l i ke the f ol l owing taken f rom Cook ’s work :

(Taken from: Language Teaching- Discourse, Guy Cook ;OUP, 1996, page 27)

The prev ious d iagram f ol l ows through onl y one f unct i on i n each

co lum n, but one might easi l y im agine a simi l ar div i si on and re -d iv i si on of

any of the other six macro -f unct i ons, or of any of the resul t i ng sub -

categor i es. The resul t would be a d iagram which b ecom es ev er m ore

prec i se and ex pl ic i t as i t m ov es f rom lef t to r i ght , wi th a l ong l i st of f ai r l y

nar rowly def i ned f unc t i ons on the r i ght -hand side. The resul t i ng l i st of


13

f unct i ons i s of the ki nd used as the bases o f f unct i onal l anguage courses -

the ones whi ch use the term i n any m eaningf ul way rather than because i t

was f ashionable - and thi s i s the connect i on between f unc t i onal courses and

f unct i onal approaches to l i ngui st i cs.

Funct i onal courses set out to l i st the purposes f or whi ch students

might wi sh to use l anguage, and then to teach them how to do so. In thi s,

they hav e im por tant st rengths, and they can teach students sk i l l s whi ch

courses concent rat i ng on f orm al f eatures of l anguage of ten omi t : how to

greet people, or how to m aintain pol i te contac t whi l e l i sten ing on the

te l ephone. But they al so hav e cer tai n weaknesses, f or the m ore ex act one

t r i es to becom e about f unct i ons, the mo re sl i ppery they becom e, and the

m ore scope there i s f or v ar i at i on and di sagreem ent . Cer tain ly , no l i st could

ev er c l aim to be ex haust iv e and com plete. There are a l so pedagogi c

problem s i n f ol l owing l i st of f unc t i ons through. W hat order should we

f ol l ow? Are som e f unct i ons m ore im por tant than others? How ex act l y do

they re late to gramm ar and v ocabulary?


Mandatory assignment 1(deadline: August 29th)

Analyze each of the elements of communication and its corresponding macro-functions in

the following dialogue:

A- Why have you changed your mind about the contract?

B- Because we decided to ask our client’s opinions.

A- And what did they say?

B- They say that they prefer to buy products that are not tested on animals.

A- Really?

B- Yes, they also said that they wish to live in a better world and when they buy products

from companies that respect animal rights, they hope to be contributing to that.

A- You see. That’s the reason our products are not experimented on animals. We know

that consumers are much more caring now.

B- Yes, that’s why we wish to purchase more of your products. We hope to form a good

partnership with you guys.

A- And a caring one!


14

2- According to Jacobson and Hymes, language is categorized into seven macro

functions: motive function, directive function, phatic function, poetic function,

referential function, metalinguistic function and contextual function. Choose one

of these macro functions and subdivide it specifying its micro functions as in the

example of the subdivision of the directive function from the unit.

The Cooperat ive Princip le

Look at a cl assi ca l ex am ple, the conv ersat ion, taken f rom ‘ Pragmat ics ’ , by

George Yule (p .36)

There ’s a woman s i t t ing on a park bench

and a large dog ly ing on the ground in

f ront o f the bench. A man comes a long

and s i t s down on the bench.

M an : Does your dog b i te?

Woman : No

(The man reaches down to pet

t he dog. The dog b i tes the man’ s hand)

M an : Hey! You sa id your dog doesn’ t

bi te .

Woman : He doesn’ t . But that ’s not my

dog.

One of the problem s wi th th i s ex change has to do wi th

comm unicat i on. The problem was caused by the m an’s assum pt i on that the

dog belonged to the wom an. F rom the man’s perspect iv e the wom an’s

answer prov ides l ess i n f ormat i on than ex pected. Of course i f she had, the

story wouldn’ t be f unny. For the story to be f unny the wom an has to g iv e

l ess i n f orm at i on than i s ex pected.

The whole si tuat i on points out that there i s an ex pected am ount of

i nf orm at i on prov ided i n conv ersat i on, and the assum pt i on i s that people

i nv o lv ed i n conv ersat i on wi l l cooperate wi th each other . In Yule ’s ex am ple,

t he wom an, cl earl y , does not want to take par t i n any cooperat iv e

i n terac t i on. But i n m ost cases, the assum pt ion of cooperat i on i s comm on to

a l l conv ersat i ons, so that i t can be def i ned as a cooperat ive pr inciple of

conv ersat i on and f ur ther subdiv i ded i n to f our sub -pr i nc ip l es, cal l ed maxims

by the Engl i sh l anguage phi l osopher Paul Gr i ce (1975) . Accordi ng to Gri ce


15

speaker s and hearer s share the cooperat ive pr i ncip l e . Speakers shape the i r

u t terances to be understood by hearers.

Gr ice anal yzes cooperat i on as i nv o lv i ng four m ax im s: quant i t y ,

qual i ty , re l a t i on, and m anner . Speakers g ive enough and not too m u ch

i nf orm at i on: quant i t y . They are genuine and sincere, speak ing " t ruth" or

f acts: qual i t y. Ut terances are re la t iv e to the contex t of the speech: re l a t i on.

Speakers t ry to present m eaning c l earl y and conc i se l y , av oiding am bigui t y :

m anner .

Grice's cooperat ive pr incip le: set o f

norms expected in conversat ion . Match

Grice ’ s four maxims expected in

conversat ion wi th thei r corresponding

def ini t ion:

MAXIMS DEFINITIONS

Quality response is relevant to topic of discussion

Quantity speaker's avoids ambiguity or obscurity, is direct and straightforward

Relation speaker tells the truth or provable by adequate evidence

Manner speaker is as informative as required

McGowan proposes that Gr ice 's f our m ax ims establ i sh im por tant

norm s of di scourse that d i f ferent genres and st ra teg ies p lay wi th . Joke and

ta l l t a l e te l l ers p lay wi th l anguage. T hey bend the ord inary st ruc tures and

assum pt i ons about speech.

McGowan argues that m uch j oking and tal l ta l e dev elopm ent i nv olv e

the tel l ers p laying wi th these f our m ax im s of Gr i ce 's cooperat iv e pr i nc ipl e .

Orv i l l e Hi cks i n a ta l e of pl oughing the popcorn f i e l d elaborates deta i l s

about h i s f a ther and the m ule. These rea l i st i c detai l s set us up f or the tal l -

ta l e ex aggerat i on of the weather be ing so hot that corn star ted to pop.

Orv i l l e , i n f act , adds one m ore " real i st i c " deta i l : t here was so m uch

popcorn, i t c reated a "b l i zzard. " He goes beyond the m ax im of quant i ty ; he

g iv es us m ore than we need to know. A l l Orv i l l e 's tal l t al es a l so v i ol a te

quali ty . He purposel y speaks unt ruths, yet he g iv es seem ingl y f ac tua l

deta i l s. He p lays wi th relation of ten, creat ing c raz i l y l ogi ca l connect i ons.

Gr ice 's f i nal m ax im, manner , dem ands that conv ersat i on be unam biguous,

but Orv i l l e's ta l l t a l es bend the m eanings of words f or hum our ; he plays

wi th words and im ages. Orv i l l e Hi cks p lays wi th these f our m ax im s of the

http://www.acs.appstate.edu/~mcgowant/3610glos.htm#wordplay


16

cooperat iv e pr i ncip l e i n hi s perf orm ances. Of ten the appropr i a te i ncongrui t y

o f hum our i n such ta l es depends on the v i o la t i on or tam pering wi th the f our

m ax im s of Gri ce 's cooperat iv e pr i nc ipl e : quant i t y , qual i t y , re l at i on, and

m anner .

Ov era l l , t hese sim ple conv ersat i onal rul es are v ery usef ul - both when they

are f o l lowed and when they are not iceably broken .

Fol lowing the Rules/M axims

W hen the rules are f o l l owed i t i s v ery easy f or people to understand each

other . W hat people say i s ex pl i c i t , d i rec t , and to the point . People say what

they m ean.

Not iceably Breaking the Rules/M axims

These ru les, howev er , are usef ul ev en when they are broken. I f a speaker

breaks the ru les i n a way that i s not iceable (ca l l ed "f l out i ng" ) , we t ry to

f i gure out why i t happened - " . . .why d id she say that?"

The f ol l owing ex am ples show how th i s work s:

I f som eone asks you, “How m uch d id your house cost?” and you respond by

say ing “Enough” - wel l , hopef ul l y they wi l l get the point (" I t ' s none of your

business. " )

Th i s i s how we imply m eaning – we say th i ngs wi thout ac tual ly hav ing to

say them by break ing Gri ce ’s ru l es over t ly (out i n the open) .

One m ore ex am ple of f l out i ng the max im s: Im agine that you and a f r i end at

work are si t t i ng around work com plaining abo ut your boss. Mid -sentence

your f r i end abrupt l y swi t ches the top i c (breaks the Max im of Relat i on) .

W i thout say ing a word your f r i end has to l d what you need to know.

As can be seen, Gr i ce ’s ru l es are im por tant – we f ol l ow them when we want

to be ex pl i c i t l y cl ear and d i rec t .

And we break the ru les i n an obv ious, not i ceable i n order to m ake a point

wi thout hav ing to be ex pl i c i t about the point be ing m ade.

Read the fol lowing joke, what

maxims of conversat ion are being

vio lated? Explain.

Student: The brain is a wonder full thing

Teacher: Why do you say that?


17

Student: Because it starts working the second you get up in the morning and never stops

until you get asked a question in class!

Adapted from:

http://www.acs.appstate.edu/~mcgowant/grice.htm


The Speech Act Theory

(proposed by Aust in and reformulated by Searle)

Aust i n f i rst dev eloped the i dea that , f or i nstance g et t i ng a g lass of

water i s an ac t i on, and ask ing som eone e l se to get you one i s al so an ac t .

Th i s concept under l i es the Speech Act Theory , whi ch we wi l l f ur ther

anal yze i n m ore detai l i n th i s sec t i on.

The impl i cat i on i s that when we speak, our wor ds do not hav e

m eaning i n them selv es. They are v ery m uch af f ected by the si tuat i on, the

speaker and the l i stener . Thus , words a lone do not hav e a sim ple f ixed

m eaning.

The Speech Act Theory proposes that on any occasion, the ac t i on

per f orm ed by produc ing ut terances wi l l consi st o f three rela ted acts of

speech: There i s f i rst a locut ionary ac t whi ch i s the basi c act of pro duc ing

a m eaningf u l l anguage ex pression . Then an i l locut ionary act and l ast l y a

perlocut ionary act . Read the ex planat i ons and def i n i t i ons below:

Locutionary act: saying something (the locution) with a certain meaning in traditional

sense. This may not constitute a speech act.

If a person has difficulties in producing sounds and words to create a meaningful

expression, in a foreign language, for instance, because of insufficient knowledge of this

language, then the person might fail to produce a locutionary act.

Illocutionary act: the performance of an act in saying something (vs. the general act

of saying something).

The illocutionary force is the speaker's intent. A true 'speech act'.

e.g. informing, ordering, warning, undertaking.



18

In general, we produce well- formed utterances with a purpose, and we always have

some kind of function in mind. The communicative force of an utterance results in what has

been described as an illocutionary act.

Of course, a speaker does not create an utterance with a function without intending it to have

an effect on the hearer. This is the third dimension, the perlocutionary act.

Perlocutionary acts: Speech acts that have an effect on the feelings, thoughts or

actions of either the speaker or the listener. In other words, they seek to change

minds! Unlike locutionary acts, perlocutionary acts are external to the

performance.e.g., inspiring, persuading or deterring.

Sear l e (1969) i dent i f i ed f iv e i l l ocut i onary /per l ocut i onary po ints:

1. Assertives: statements may be judged true or false because they aim to describe a

state of affairs in the world.

2. Directives: statements attempt to make the other person's actions fit the propositional

content.

3. Commissives: statements which commit the speaker to a course of action as

described by the propositional content.

4. Expressives: statements that express the “sincerity condition of the speech act”.

5. Declaratives: statements that attempt to change the world by “representing it as

having been changed”.

Thus, pret t y much al l we do when we are ta l ki ng i s to asser t , d i rec t ,

commiserate, ex press and dec lare.

The m eaning of an ut terance i s thus def i ned m ore by conv ent i on than

the i ni t i a t iv e of the reader . W hen we speak, we are f ol l owing l earned ru les.

Per format iv i t y occurs where the ut terance of a word a l so enacts i t ( ' I nam e

th i s sh ip. . . ' ) . I t i s a f orm of i l l ocut i onary ac t . Thi s has been taken up by

such as Judi th But l er i n f emini sm and has been used to i nd i cate how

pornography i s l ess a f orm of speech as a per f orm at iv e act of sex ual

degradat i on. I t i s re l a ted to suture and i nterpel l at i on i n the way i t f orces a

si tuat i on.

Some examples:


19

Oh! - is an utterance (note that communication is not

intended - it is just a sound caused by surprise).

The black cat - is a propositional act/locutionary act

(something is referenced, but no communication may be

intended)

The black cat is stupid - is an assertive illocutionary act (it

intends to communicate).

Please find the black cat - is a directive perlocutionary act

(it seeks to change behaviour).

Adapted from:



Impl icat ions of Pragmatics, d iscourse analysis for language teaching

So f ar we hav e been d i scussing theor i es of the pragm at ic

i n terpretat i on of l anguage: how people c reate m eaning and m ake sense of

what i s sa id i n spec i f i c ci rcum stances. The f act that m eaning i s not

const ruc ted f rom the f orm al l anguage of the m essage a lone i s c rucia l i n

ex pla ini ng what i t i s that m akes people per ce iv e som e st re tches of

l anguage as coherent d i scourse and others as d i sconnected j um bles. I t i s

a l so im por tant f or the successf u l teaching and l earn ing of f oreign

l anguages.

The impor tance of pragm at i c theor i es i n l anguage l earn ing i s rea l ly

twof o ld . Fi r st l y the d iv ergence of f unct i on and f orm m eans that we cannot

re l y upon teaching only f orm. In product i on, l earners need to choose the

words whi ch m ost su i tab le real i ze thei r i n tent i on, and th i s does not a lways

enta i l t he m ost c l osel y re l ated f orm; i n recept i on of l anguage, g iv en the

hum an penchant f or i nd i rect i on, they a l so need to be able to m ov e f rom the

f orm to the func t i on. There are t im es when m aking the l anguage f unc t i on

ef fec t iv el y i s m ore im por tant than producing per f ect l y pronounced,

gramm at ica l l y cor rec t sentences.

Secondl y , the l i nking of f orm to f unc t i on m ay help l earners to

or i g i nate them selv es wi th i n a d i sc ourse. A l l l earners of a fore ign l anguage

are f ami l i ar wi th the di sturb ing sensat i on of understanding ev ery word, and

the l i t eral meaning, but som ehow missing the point . The under ly i ng



20

st ruc ture of the d i scourse m ay be a progression of f unc t i onal un i t s, and a

breakdown i n pragm at i c i n ter pretat i on may easi l y l ead to a l earner l osing

h i s or her way. W e shal l need to go f urther i n ex amin ing how f unc t i onal

un i t s i n teract to c reat e d i scourse, and how the l earner m ay be guided

through them .

The two points ra i se the i ssue of the ex tent to whi c h pragm at i c

i n terpretat i on and di scourse st ruc ture are cu l ture spe c i f i c, and the ex tent to

whi ch they need to be - or can be- taught . In order t o ‘do thi ngs wi th words’

ei ther act iv el y, as l anguage producers, or passiv el y , as l anguage

understanders, we c lea r l y need m ore tool s than the f orm al l anguage

system , though we do need that too. The needs of the l anguage user might

be represented as i n the f ol l owing char t taken f rom Guy Cook:

T a k e n f r o m “ D i s c o u r s e, G u y C o o k , 1 9 9 6 , p a g e 4 2

T radi t i onal l y, l anguage teaching has concent rated onl y on the three

l ev e l s of the f orm al l anguage sy stem - pronunc iat i on, gramm ar , and

v ocabulary - and the way i n whi ch they func t i on wi th i n the sentence, on the

assum pt i on that other aspects of comm unicat i on wi l l f ol l ow f ai r ly

autom at i cal l y . I t rem ains t rue, of course, that the f orm al system of a fore ign

l anguage i s v ery obv iousl y d i f ferent f rom that of the l earner ’s f i rst

l anguage, that i t , t heref ore , f orm s the basi s of any fu l l comm unicat i on, and

that i t needs to be acqui red i n som e way. I t i s not , howev er , al l t hat i s

needed f or communicat i on. So far , i n our search f or the f orces whi ch

c reates coherence, we hav e ex amined some of the other f actors i n

comm unicat i on.

I n the f i rst un i t we hav e seen how the f o rmal system operates across

sentences and we hav e m ent i on ed how knowledge of the wor l d or of the


21

cul ture, about soc ia l rol es and re la t i onships) enables people to m ake thei r

l anguage f unct i on as they i ntend to understand how others do the sam e to

them. To connect the i r knowledge wi th the language system people use

reasoning, and pragm at i c theor i es. In order to understand th i s, we should

go som e way towards ex plain i ng how people reason the i r way f rom the f orm

to the f unct i on and thus const ruc t coherent d i scou rse f rom the l anguage

they receiv e.

W hat we need to dec ide as l anguage teachers i s the degree to whi ch

other com ponents of comm unicat i on need teaching. Al l hum an beings hav e

reasoning power , wor l d knowledge, and knowledge of a t l east one cu l ture;

but the div i si ons between these categor i es and the nature of the i r contents

are not a lways c l ear . How f ar do conv ersat ional pr i ncipl es and the

i n terpretat i on of speech ac ts proceeds d i f f erent l y i n d i f ferent cu l ture, for

ex am ple? W e a l so need to help l earners i n tegrate the com ponents of

comm unicat i on one wi th another . I t i s no good teachin g them as d i screte

un i t s and hoping that the l earner , suddenl y f ace wi th imm ediate success.

W hatev er cul tural v ar i a t i on there m ay be i n pragm at i c i nterpretat i on, we

m ay be sure that i t s i n terac t i on wi th form i s l anguage spec i f ic . I t does

needs teaching, though we m ust be caref ul not to go to the opposi te

ex trem e, as m any courses do, and pat ron i zing l y th at adul t l earners l ike

new-born babies. They br i ng wi th them immense reasoning power ,

knowledge of the wor l d , and a sophi st i cated sk i l l at im plem ent i ng throu gh

the i r own l anguage and cu l ture the com plex needs of al l hum ans; to rel a te

to others, and to act wi th them .


Mandatory assignment 2 (deadline: September 9th)

Consider the following exchanges. Does the second speaker answers the first speaker’s

question in each case? Does the answer implicate anything? What maxim/s are being

flouted in each case and what the reasons might be?

1) Exchange between two colleagues:

A: Did I get invited to the conference?

B: Your paper was too long.


22

2) Exchange between mother and daughter:

M: What did you have for breakfast this morning?

D: Food

3) Exchange between two friends:

Lucy: What’s Kate’s husband like?

Sue: She married a rat

4) Exchange between husband and wife?

W: Do you like my new coat?

H: It’s pink!

5) Exchange between two students:

A: Coffee?

B: It would keep me awake all night.

1- Provide two examples (real or invented) in which Grice’s rules are broken overtly

(flouting) stating which of the maxims is being violated in each case.

2- Speech Acts: Provide one example (created by you) for each type of speech acts:

Locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary.

END OF UNIT II

linguistics - instituto lenguas vivas bariloche – discourse analysis 2 unit ii introduction...

Documents