Дискурсологія. Конспект лекцій

•What are some of the rules for ‘complaining to your superior’?

Interactional Sociolinguistics

•Communication as a way of signaling social activities and social identities

•Attention to strategies speakers use to signal activity and identity

•Competing ‘frames’

Pragmatics

•Communication as doing things with words;

•Sentence meaning vs. speaker meaning.

Scholars in the field of pragmatics, including speech act theorists, focus primarily on how the resources speakers have for expressing certain meanings and intentions interact with the social conditions in which the resources are used and the social identities of those who use them. For them, conversation is about ‘logic’.

People make sense of other people by taking into account various factors (how certain meanings are usually made, what the probable intentions of speakers are, what is possible in particular situations) and coming to a conclusion about what they probably mean.

Genre Analysis

•Communication as using the generic conventions of a discourse community

•Focus on the structure of the interaction

•Do ‘moves’ occur in a predictable way?

Politeness Theory

•Communication as a way of encoding social relationships

•Focus on ‘Face threatening acts’ and ‘Face saving strategies’

Critical Discourse Analysis

•Communication as a way of exercising and resisting power

•Focus on existing power relations and how they are reinforced

•Examines underlying assumptions

•Asks, ‘who really won?’

Multimodal Discourse Analysis

•Communication as a matter of combining multiple modes

•Focus not just on words but on gestures, facial expressions, posture, proxemics, gaze, object handling, spatial layout, time and timing

Mediated Discourse Analysis

•Communication as a tool for taking action

•Focus on actions and the cultural tools that make them possible

Content analysis A quantitative form of textual analysis involving the categorization and counting of recurrent elements in the form or content of texts. Content analysis is a method in the social sciences for studying the content of those

41

types of empirical documentation which can be briefly referred to - with Hodder - as mute evidence, "that is written texts and artifacts".

analysis - whatever this "umbrella term" today means - may come from processes of communication strictiore sensu (i.e. active role of a sender, code in common between sender and receiver) or processes of what in semiotics is commonly known as signification or communication processes latiore sensu (absence of sender and code, semiosis developed by abduction). Earl Babbie defines it as "the study of

which texts are studied as to authorship, authenticity, or meaning. This latter subject includes philology, hermeneutics, and semiotics.

As the uncritical use of text is today widely recognized as naive in the Social Sciences domain, we can move from the original classification by Krippendorff and define with Tipaldo content analysis as "a wide and heterogeneous set of manual or computer-assisted techniques for contextualized interpretations of documents produced by communication processes strictiore sensu (any kind of text, written, iconic, multimedia, etc.) or signification processes (traces and artifacts), having as ultimate goal the production of valid and trustworthy inferences". Harold Lasswell formulated the core questions of content analysis: "Who says what, to whom, why, to what extent and with what effect?" Ole Holsti offers a broad definition of content analysis as "any technique for making inferences by objectively and systematically identifying specified characteristics of messages", while Kimberly Neuendorf provides a six-part definition: "Content analysis is a summarising, quantitative analysis of messages that relies on the scientific method (including attention to objectivity, intersubjectivity, a priori design, reliability, validity, generalisability, replicability, and hypothesis testing) and is not limited as to the types of variables that may be measured or the context in which the messages are created or presented."

Grounded theory provides an attempt to identify how non-trivial theory and generalisations can be made through qualitative research. The approach inverts traditional quantitative approaches by grounding theory in accounts and observations of everyday life rather than in the imagination of the speculative theorist who develops the theory first and then seeks ways of testing it empirically. (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

Narrative semiotics is treated to some extent by all semioticians, but it figures especially prominently in works by Iu. M. Lotman, U. Eco, and R. Barthes, J. Kristeva, and T. Todorov. It is mainly concerned with literature but also studies legal, publicistic, and religious texts and paintings, films, and works of architecture. In narrative semiotics, the object of study is examined in a way analogous to the

42

way language is investigated. In this sense, narrative semiotics is simply an end stage of the scholarly tradition that preceded it. In all the materialist aesthetic theories of the past and in the dialectical-materialist aesthetic, art has been described as an indissoluble unity of sensory-material and idea-tional-conceptual forces; the sensory-material forces play an expressive role (as phenomenon, fact, or signifier) and the idea-tional-conceptual forces play the role of that which is expressed (the signified, essence, sense, or idea). Consequently, these theories were concerned with deep sign relationships. However, it is not art as a whole but always the individual work of art that behaves as a semiotic system and is thus the direct object of study in narrative semiotics. This is because it is only within the confines of an individual work (more rarely, a cycle) that definite analogies with language and speech will operate and that more or less univalent rules of signification

(semiosis), “vocabulary” units, and rules of the syntax and genesis of the text can be established. Different approaches are emphasized, depending on which of the analogies with language is considered the most essential.

References:

1. Andreichuk N. Tropes as the Effective Tool of Content Analysis / N. Andreychuk, O. Sherstniova // Людина. Комп’ютер. Комунікація : зб. наук. пр. / [ред. Ф. С. Бацевич]. – Львів : Вид-во нац. ун-ту „Львівська політехніка”, 2010. – С. 107–113.

2. Stemler S. An overview of content analysis [Електронний ресурс] / S. Stemler // Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. – 2001. – № 7 (17). – Режим доступу: http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17

3.Методы анализа текста и дискурса : пер. с англ. / Титчер С., Мейер М., Водак Р., Веттер Е. – Х. : Гуманитарный центр, 2009. – 356 с.

4.Степанов Ю. С. Методы и принципы современной лингвистики / Юрий Сергеевич Степанов. – 2-е изд. – М. : Едиториал УРСС, 2001. – 312 с.

LECTURE 15

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

The subject area of Discourse Analysis (DA). Key preconditions for DA. DA complexity. Three approaches to DA - Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s discourse theory, critical discourse analysis, and discursive psychology.

Discourse Analysis – also referred to as ‘critical analysis’ – can be understood as a scientific approach (a manner of deconstructive reading) to analysing (written, vocal or sing) language use or any relevant communicative event. The analysis enables access to the ontological and epistemological assumptions behind a statement, strategy, policy or programme. Moreover, discourse analysis reveals the motivations, ideas and interests behind a text,

43

statement or conversation. Contrary to text linguistics, discourse analysis does not focus on text structures, but on the socio-cultural characteristics of the text.

Discourse analysis is not just one approach, but a series of interdisciplinary approaches that can be used to explore many different social domains in many different types of studies.

Social constructionism is an umbrella term for a range of new theories about culture and society. Three different approaches to social constructionist discourse analysis –

Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s discourse theory,

critical discourse analysis,

discursive psychology.

All three approaches share the starting point that our ways of talking do not neutrally reflect our world, identities and social relations but, rather, play an active role in creating and changing them. The approaches are similar to one another in their social constructionist starting point, in their view of language, stemming from structuralist and poststructuralist linguistics, and in their understanding of the individual based on a version of structuralist Marxism. Burr (1995) lists four premises shared by all social constructionist approaches:

A critical approach to taken-for-granted knowledge

Historical and cultural specificity (Burr 1995: 3)

Link between knowledge and social processes

Link between knowledge and social action

Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s Discourse Theory Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (1985), is the ‘purest’ poststructuralist theory. The theory has its starting point in the poststructuralist idea that discourse constructs the social world in meaning, and that, owing to the fundamental instability of language, meaning can never be permanently fixed. No discourse is a closed entity: it is, rather, constantly being transformed through contact with other discourses. So a keyword of the theory is discursive struggle. Different discourses – each of them representing particular ways of talking about and understanding the social world – are engaged in a constant struggle with one other to achieve hegemony, that is, to fix the meanings of language in their own way. Hegemony, then, can provisionally be understood as the dominance of one particular perspective.

Critical Discourse Analysis is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context.

It focuses primarily on social problems and political issues, rather than on current paradigms and fashions. Empirically adequate critical analysis of social

44

problems is usually multidisciplinary. Rather than to merely describe discourse structures, it tries to explain them in terms of properties of social interaction and especially social structure. More specifically CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm, legitimate, reproduce or challenge relations of power and dominance in society.

Fairclough & Wodak (1997: 271-280) summarize the main tenets of CDA as follows:

1.CDA addresses social problems

2.Power relations are discursive

3.Discourse Constitutes Society and Culture

4.Discourse does ideological work

5.Discourse is historical

6.The link between text and society is mediated

7.Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory

8.Discourse is a form of social action.

Discursive Psychology. Developed in the 1990s, it put into question conventional psychological and social psychological thinking by eschewing talk about ‘inner’ processes, whether these inner processes are conceived in terms of beliefs, memories, attitudes, cognitive features, predispositions, or some such

(Billig 1997, Harré 1995; Parker 1992, 2004; Edwards 1994, 1997; Edwards &

Potter 1992; Potter &Wetherell 1987, 1995; Hepburn & Wiggins 2007).

According to discursive psychology, language does not merely express experiences; rather, language also constitutes experiences and the subjective, psychological reality (Potter and Wetherell 1987; Shotter 1993; Wetherell 1995).

Discursive psychology focuses on specific instances of language use in social interaction. The aim of discursive psychologists is not so much to analyse the changes in society’s ‘large-scale discourses’, which concrete language use can bring about, as to investigate how people use the available discourses flexibly in creating and negotiating representations of the world and identities in talk-in- interaction and to analyse the social consequences of this. Despite the choice of label for this approach – ‘discursive psychology’ – its main focus is not internal psychological conditions. Discursive psychology is an approach to social psychology that has developed a type of discourse analysis in order to explore the ways in which people’s selves, thoughts and emotions are formed and transformed through social interaction and to cast light on the role of these processes in social and cultural reproduction and change. In discursive psychology, the stress is on individuals both as products of discourse and as producers of discourse in specific

45

contexts of interaction whereas Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory tends to view individuals solely as subjects of discourse.

Discursive psychologists such as Hepburn and Wiggins (2007) might share more in common with conversational analysis, whilst others manifest a greater concern with wider power and ideological issues (e.g., Parker 2004). At one end of this spectrum, structures and institutions are understood to be constructed. In this view, speakers act with certain expectations and responsibilities, revealing how ‘the institutionality of the interaction... is produced within the talk itself’ (Hepburn and Wiggins2007). At the other end of the spectrum, structures and institutions are understood as having a role in shaping the interaction between actors. a ‘turn to discourse’ sensitizes us to how language and meaning positions us within a wider web of power relations and that the immediate interaction cannot be understood without reference to this broader discursive field. Both strands of discursive psychology canvassed here attach considerable importance to non-linguistic features: from all sorts of non-verbal cues accompanying actors’ talk all the way to more general patterns of practices, including images, sounds, and the organization of physical space.

References:

1.Applied Discourse Analysis: Social and Psychological Interventions /Ed. by Willig C. – London: Sage, 1999.

2.Слово в действии. Интент-анализ политического дискурса / под. ред. Т. Н. Ушаковой, Н. Д. Павловой. – Спб. : Алетейя, 2000. – 316 с.

3.Филипс Л., Йоргенсен М.В., Дискурс анализ. Теория и метод / Л.Филипс, М.В.Йоргенсен [Пер. с англ.] – Х.: Изд-во Гуманитарный центр,

2004 – 336 с.

LECTURE 16

THE COURSE OVERVIEW. DISCOURSE AS AN ALTERNATIVE

WORLD IN THE WORLD OF LANGUAGE

Self-assessment

Choose the correct answer:

1.According to D.Schiffrin (1994) and other authors, Discourse Analysis…

a)involves only the study of context;

b)is devoted to the study of text;

c)includes the analysis of both text and context.

2. Functionalists see language…

a)mainly as a mental phenomenon;

b)as a predominantly social phenomenon;

c)as an acoustic phenomenon.

3. Discourse studies are…

46

a)restricted to the field of Linguistics;

b)devoted mainly to social phenomena;

c)essentially multidisciplinary.

4. Many scholars’ studies, like those of van Dijk or de Beaugrande…

a)have not changed substantially with time;

b)have evolved from Text Linguistics to Discourse Analysis;

c)do not show a natural flow of beliefs or ideas.

5.Discourse as a linguistic term was first introduced by …. in 1952 in the terminological combination “discourse analysis”.

a)T.van Dijk;

b)R. Jakobson;

c)Z.Harris.

6.Discourse as “discoursive practices”, interactive … phenomenon, “live” communication.

a)cognitive-speech;

b)cognitive;

c)speech.

7.Formal-semiotic level of discourse stratification correlates with …

a)verbal form of discourse representation – text;

b)senses implied and interpreted;

c)interaction of the communicants in social environment, correlation of their aims.

8.… focuses on communication as joint activity; attention to the sequential organization of talk, turn-taking and topic management

a)Conversation Analysis;

b)Interactional Sociolinguistics;

c)Genre Analysis.

9.… focuses on communication as doing things with words; sentence meaning vs. speaker meaning

a)Conversation Analysis;

b)Pragmatic analysis;

c)Multimodal Discourse Analysis.

10.The Ethnography of Communication views …

a)Communication as a matter of cultural competence. Focus on things like setting, participants, mood, and other kinds of behavioral rules. What are some of the rules for ‘complaining to your superior’?

b)Communication as a way of exercising and resisting power. Focus on existing power relations and how they are reinforced. Examines underlying assumptions.

Asks, ‘who really won?’

c)Communication as a tool for taking action. Focus on actions and the cultural tools that make them possible.

47

11. According to Eggins (1997) Speech act theory and Pragmatics are … approaches to DA

a)Sociolinguistic;

b)Logico-philosophical;

c)Structural-functional.

12…. is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context.

a)Critical Discourse Analysis

b)Conversational Analysis

c)Pragmatic analysis

13.Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s discourse theory, critical discourse analysis, and discursive psychology are different approaches to…

a)philosophical discourse analysis

b)social constructionist discourse analysis

c)logic-philosophical discourse analysis

14. According to …, language does not merely express experiences; rather, language also constitutes experiences and the subjective, psychological reality.

a)discursive psychology

b)Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s discourse theory

c)critical discourse analysis

15.…. intertext function – a need to determine relevance with source-text for its deeper understanding.

a)Metatextual;

b)Expressive;

c)Appealing.

16.The category of … is realized on the basis of dialogic interaction of communicants and text modules with semiotic universe, represented in code of language, culture, science, literature, etc.

a)Intersemioticity;

b)Intertextuality;

c)Intentionality.

17.The categories of addressor and addressee are the subcategories of ….

a)Antropocentricity;

b)Referentiality;

c)Integrity.

18.Subcategories of interactivity are …

a)Addressor and addressee;

b)Intentionality, strategity, interpretant;

c)Reference, substitution, ellipsis.

19.…… concerns the ways in which the components of the surface text, i.e. the actual words we hear or see, are mutually connected within a sequence.

48

a)Cohesion;

b)Coherence;

c)Intersemioticity.

20.….. concerns the ways in which the components of the textual world, i.e. the configuration of concepts and relations which underlie the surface text, are mutually accessible and relevant".

a)Cohesion;

b)Coherence;

c)Interactivity.

21.… proposed 4 basic conversational ‘rules’ [maxims] as criteria for successful

conversation: quantity [don’t say too much or too little]; relevance [keep to the point]; manner [speak in a clear, coherent and orderly way]; quality [be truthful]

a)P. Grice;

b)J. Searle;

c)G.Pocheptsov.

22.Democratic discourse type is …

a)descriptive, explanatory and argumentative;

b)narrative and instructive;

c)one-way communication.

23.Architextuality is …

a)genre relation of texts;

b)presence of several texts in one (quotation, plagiarism);

c)critical reference to own text

24.The conventionalised forms of the occasions lead to the conventionalised forms of texts, to specific …

a)discourses;

b)genres;

c)communicative acts.

25. .…, formulated by K. Bühler, defined the communication functions according to which linguistic communication can be described.

a)The Organon model;

b)The semiotic model;

c)The pragmatic model.

26.The process of … model formation and use is monitored by the Control System, which among other central information contains macropropositions (topics), and a Context Model, representing the major dimensions of the communicative context.

a)Social;

b)Interactive;

c)Cognitive.

49

НАВЧАЛЬНЕ ВИДАННЯ

Ділай Маріанна Петрівна

PERSPECTIVES ON DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

КОНСПЕКТ ЛЕКЦІЙ

із дисципліни «Актуальні питання дискурсології» для студентів освітньо-кваліфікаційного рівня магістр спеціальності 8.02030303 «Прикладна лінгвістика»

Редактор

Комп’ютерна версія

50