Ptdn group5

HONG DUC UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES ASSIGNMENT DISCOURSE ANALYSIS USING BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF DISCOURSE CONTENT Group 5: Lê Thị Vi Linh Hà Thanh Hiền Nguyễn Thị Thúy Nguyễn Mai Linh Trần Văn Thắng Class: K23B – English Language THANH HOA - 2023 List of participating members No Full name Hà Thanh Hiền Trần Văn Thắng Nguyễn Mai Linh Nguyễn Thị Thúy Lê Thị Vi Linh Participation content Learn the part introduction and part computing communicative funtion of using background knowledge in the interpretation of discourse Learn the part computing communicative funtion and negotiating Learn the part using background knowledge about default elements and frames Learn the part using background knowledge about scripts and scenarios Learn the part using background knowledge about schemata and summarize the entire topic content 1 Introduction It should be apparent by now that the interpretation of discourse is based on a number of things The most important, probably, is the addressee's effort to arrive at the addressor's intended meaning in producing a message In addition, there is the principle of analogy, local interpretation and general features of context and inferences, the regularities of discourse structure and the organisation of information structure These are the aspects of discourse which the reader can make use of in his reading of a particular discourse fragment But we believe there is much more to that For example, when someone says: "Have you got the time?", we normally interpret its purpose as an inquiry about what the time is; or "Washington" will be interpreted as a place name or the name of a person rather than other things the mind can imagine All this is part of what we may call socio-cultural knowledge Background knowledge is crucial in discourse analysis because it helps fill in gaps, infer implicit meanings, and make connections between different elements of the discourse It allows readers or analysts to go beyond the literal interpretation and understand the deeper layers of meaning embedded in the text Background knowledge is essential not only for the readers but also for researchers analyzing the text Researchers need to bring their own knowledge and understanding of relevant literary, cultural, historical, or social contexts to interpret the discourse accurately This helps uncover the layers of meaning, explore the author's intentions, and understand the broader implications of the discourse within the book Brown and Yule (1983) suggest that there are three aspects of the process of interpreting a speaker/writer's intended meaning in producing discourse: ● Computing the communicative function (taking the message) ● Using socio-cultural knowledge (background) ● Determining the inferences to be made Computing communicative function Speakers convey both social (interactional) and propositional (transactional) meanings when they produce language in a particular context Thus, it becomes clear that the hearer or addressee will try to compute these two types of meaning Social (interactional) meanings refer to the way speakers use language to establish and maintain social relationships, express emotions, convey politeness, or engage in small talk These aspects of discourse focus on the interpersonal aspects of communication and the social functions of language For example, in a conversation, speakers may engage in greetings, express gratitude, show empathy, or engage in humor or banter to build rapport and establish a friendly atmosphere Propositional (transactional) meanings, on the other hand, refer to the content or information being conveyed through language This aspect of discourse emphasizes the exchange of factual information, conveying instructions, sharing ideas, or discussing specific topics For example, speakers may provide explanations, give directions, ask questions, present arguments, or negotiate agreements during a conversation or discussion Both social and propositional meanings are important in discourse analysis as they contribute to the overall understanding and interpretation of communication By examining both aspects, researchers can gain insights into the participants' intentions, social dynamics, and the underlying messages or information being conveyed For instance, in everyday conversations, "how are you" is commonly used as a greeting, particularly in English-speaking cultures While it may seem like a question about someone's well-being, it often functions more as a social ritual or a formulaic greeting rather than a genuine inquiry into someone's health This phrase serves an interactional or social function It helps establish rapport, demonstrate politeness, and signal social norms of courtesy When someone says "how are you" as a greeting, the expected response is typically a reciprocal greeting, such as "I'm good, thanks How about you?" or a similar positive acknowledgement Analyzing it further, we can identify certain features that distinguish it as a greeting rather than a serious inquiry The phrase is often uttered in a casual and quick manner, without expecting a detailed response It is a conventionalized utterance that does not necessarily require a genuine answer about one's health In discourse analysis, examining the use of "how are you" as a greeting rather than a serious inquiry allows us to understand the social and interactional functions of language It demonstrates how language is used not only for conveying propositional meanings but also for establishing and maintaining social relationships, showing politeness, and adhering to cultural norms of communication * It is sometimes argued that there exist rules of interpretation which relate what is said to what is done and on the basis of some social rules that language is read as coherent or incoherent Coherence is obvious in the following example, even though no formal cohesive links are identified (Widdowson 1979, quoted in Brown and Yule) A Can you go to Edinburgh tomorrow? B B.E.A pilots are on strike The example demonstrates the concept of coherence in discourse analysis, where the interpretation and understanding of the conversation rely on the shared knowledge and context between the speakers Even though no formal cohesive links are explicitly identified, the coherence of the conversation can be inferred based on the background knowledge and the assumptions made by the participants In this example, Speaker A asks Speaker B, "Can you go to Edinburgh tomorrow?" Speaker B's response is, "B.E.A pilots are on strike." The coherence of the conversation depends on the shared understanding and assumptions between the speakers If Speaker B intends to convey the meaning that they cannot go to Edinburgh, the coherence is established through the shared knowledge that the pilots' strike would result in the unavailability of flights This interpretation relies on the background knowledge about the impact of a strike on airline operations Overall, this example highlights the importance of coherence in discourse analysis, where the interpretation and understanding of a conversation depend on the participants' ability to draw upon their background knowledge and make connections based on shared assumptions and context * Computing communicative function refers to the process of using computational tools and techniques to analyze and understand the communicative functions of language in a given text or interaction It involves examining how language functions to convey meaning, interact with social structures, and achieve communicative goals One way to analyze computing communicative function is through the concept of top-down and bottom-up processing Top-down processing refers to the use of higher-level knowledge and context to interpret the meaning of a given utterance or text It involves applying prior knowledge and expectations to understand the intended meaning On the other hand, bottom-up processing involves analyzing the linguistic elements of a text or utterance without relying heavily on context It focuses on the structure and form of the language to derive meaning To illustrate this concept, let's consider the example of the greeting "How are you?" In a top-down analysis, we would consider the social and cultural norms surrounding greetings and understand that "How are you?" is a common greeting in many English-speaking countries We interpret it as a polite and routine way of initiating conversation, rather than a genuine inquiry about the person's well-being The communicative function in this case is establishing a friendly interaction and showing courtesy In a bottom-up analysis, we would focus on the linguistic features of the greeting itself We might look at the structure of the sentence, the choice of words, and the intonation Analyzing it purely based on linguistic features, we might interpret it as a question about the person's health or well-being However, by considering the context and our knowledge of social norms, we can infer the intended communicative function Interpretation of discourse is not a simple matter of either bottom-up or topdown moving, but rather an interactive process The comprehender can move with ease from one type of processing to another *Negotiating meaning refers to the process by which participants in a conversation or interaction work together to establish shared understanding and interpretation of the messages being communicated It involves analyzing how participants negotiate, clarify, and align their interpretations of language and discourse to ensure effective communication Here are some key aspects of negotiating meaning : a Clarification and elaboration: Participants may ask questions, seek clarifications, or provide additional information to ensure that their intended meaning is understood by others For example, someone might say, "Could you please explain what you mean by that?" or "Let me provide more details about my previous statement." b Repetition and paraphrasing: Participants may repeat or rephrase their statements to reinforce or clarify their intended meaning This helps ensure that their message is understood correctly For instance, someone might say, "To clarify, what I meant was " or "In other words, what I'm trying to say is " c Contextual cues and shared knowledge: Participants may rely on contextual cues, shared knowledge, or background information to negotiate meaning They may refer to previous conversations or use references to common experiences or cultural references to enhance understanding For example, someone might say, "As we discussed earlier " or "You know how in that movie " d Non-verbal communication: Non-verbal cues, such as facial expressions, gestures, or intonation, can play a role in negotiating meaning Participants may use these cues to convey additional information or to emphasize or clarify their intended meaning e Negotiation of terms and definitions: Participants may engage in discussions or negotiations to establish common understanding of terms, concepts, or definitions This can involve providing explanations, offering examples, or referring to authoritative sources For example, someone might say, "Let's define what we mean by 'success' in this context" or "According to this study, 'sustainability' refers to " By analyzing the ways in which participants negotiate meaning in discourse, researchers can gain insights into the processes through which shared understanding is achieved It helps uncover the strategies, techniques, and collaborative efforts employed by participants to ensure effective communication and avoid misunderstandings Using background knowledge 3.1 Default elements Default elements can also refer to the background knowledge or prior assumptions that individuals bring to the table when engaging in analysis These default elements are the ideas, concepts, or beliefs that are already known or accepted by the analyst and serve as the starting point for their analysis When using background knowledge as default elements, analysts rely on their existing understanding of a subject to make sense of new information or to draw conclusions These default elements can include theories, frameworks, or concepts that the analyst has previously learned or encountered in their field of study For example, in a political analysis, an analyst may have a default element that democratic principles and institutions are essential for a functioning and fair society This default element is based on their background knowledge of political theory and the prevailing norms in democratic societies When analyzing a specific political system, the analyst would likely start with this default element, examining how well the system adheres to democratic principles and assessing its effectiveness in promoting citizen participation and accountability However, it is important to be aware of the potential limitations and biases that default elements based on background knowledge can introduce Analysts should critically evaluate their default elements and be open to challenging or expanding their understanding based on new evidence or alternative perspectives By doing so, analysts can avoid confirmation bias and ensure a more comprehensive and objective analysis In summary, default elements in analysis discourse when using background knowledge are the pre-existing ideas, concepts, or beliefs that analysts rely on as a starting point for their analysis These default elements can shape the direction and conclusions of the analysis, but it is important to critically evaluate them to avoid bias and to allow for a more comprehensive and objective analysis 3.2 Frames Frames refer to the underlying structures or patterns that shape how individuals interpret and understand communication Frames provide a framework for organizing and making sense of information, guiding individuals' perceptions, interpretations, and responses to discourse Frames can be thought of as cognitive filters through which individuals process and understand the meaning and implications of communication They help individuals categorize and interpret information, as well as assign meaning and significance to specific aspects of discourse Here are a few examples of frames in discourse analysis: ● Thematic Frames: These frames focus on specific themes or topics within discourse For example, a thematic frame in a political discourse could be centered around issues like healthcare, immigration, or climate change When analyzing discourse through a thematic frame, researchers examine how these themes are constructed, represented, and discussed ● Ideological Frames: Ideological frames reflect individuals' underlying beliefs, values, and political ideologies These frames shape how individuals interpret and evaluate discourse based on their ideological perspectives For instance, a conservative frame may prioritize limited government intervention, individual freedom, and traditional values, while a progressive frame may emphasize social justice, equality, and the need for systemic change ● Narrative Frames: Narrative frames involve the storytelling aspect of discourse They focus on how events, characters, and plotlines are constructed and presented in a narrative form Narrative frames help individuals understand the overall structure and meaning of a discourse by identifying key storylines, conflicts, and resolutions ● Problem-Solution Frames: Problem-solution frames highlight the identification and resolution of issues within discourse They involve identifying a problem or challenge, analyzing its causes and consequences, and proposing or evaluating potential solutions These frames help individuals understand how discourse addresses and frames problems and their proposed solutions By analyzing frames in discourse analysis, researchers can gain insights into how communication is constructed, interpreted, and evaluated by individuals and communities Understanding frames helps to uncover the underlying assumptions, biases, and influences that shape discourse and impact the way it is understood and responded to 3.3 Scripts In the context of using background knowledge in the interpretation of discourse, scripts are representations of highly abstract generic structure potential associated with events; they delineate the inherent elements of events and their sequences (Schank and Abelson 1977) A script refers to a written dialogue or conversation that illustrates how individuals rely on their background knowledge to understand and make meaning of the discourse The script serves as a fictional or hypothetical scenario that showcases the role of background knowledge in interpreting and comprehending communication The purpose of the script is to demonstrate how background knowledge, such as cultural familiarity, subject-specific knowledge, personal experiences, and historical context, influences the interpretation of discourse It aims to highlight how individuals with different backgrounds may understand and interpret the same conversation differently based on their prior knowledge and experiences The script provides a concrete example of how background knowledge acts as a guiding framework, helping individuals interpret language, understand implicit meanings, decipher cultural references, and make connections within the discourse It emphasizes the importance of considering background knowledge in discourse analysis to gain a deeper understanding of communication and its underlying complexities By presenting a fictional or hypothetical scenario in the form of a script, it allows for a more engaging and relatable representation of how background knowledge influences the interpretation of discourse It helps illustrate the practical application of background knowledge in real-life communication situations and highlights its significance in understanding and analyzing discourse effectively Example: Script: A conversation between two friends discussing a recent soccer match Friend A: "Did you see that beautiful goal by Ronaldo?" 10 Friend B: "Yeah, he really knows how to bend it like Beckham!" In this script, background knowledge of soccer and familiarity with famous players like Ronaldo and Beckham is necessary to fully understand the conversation Without this background knowledge, the conversation may not make sense or the references may be misinterpreted This example illustrates how scripts can demonstrate the role of background knowledge in interpreting discourse By presenting hypothetical or real-life conversations, scripts provide a tangible representation of how our prior knowledge and experiences influence our understanding and interpretation of language 3.4 Scenarios In the context of using background knowledge in the interpretation of discourse, scenarios were developed to refer to characteristic properties of situations that were not necessarily represented in propositional form (Stanford and Garrod 1981) Scenarios provide a context or setting where individuals can apply their background knowledge to make sense of the discourse They allow for a practical demonstration of how prior knowledge and experiences shape the interpretation of language and facilitate comprehension Example: Scenario : Picture a group of friends discussing a recent movie that is set in a specific historical period Friend A: "I really enjoyed the attention to detail in the costumes and set design." Friend B: "Yes, it transported us back to the Victorian era so convincingly." In this scenario, background knowledge of historical periods, such as the Victorian era, is crucial for understanding the conversation The scenario provides a 11 context where individuals can draw upon their knowledge of history and cultural references to interpret the discourse This scenario demonstrates how hypothetical or fictional situations can be used to illustrate the role of background knowledge in understanding and interpreting discourse By presenting specific contexts, scenarios provide a practical framework for individuals to apply their prior knowledge and experiences, highlighting the significance of background knowledge in communication comprehension 3.5 Schemata In discourse analysis, schemata refer to the mental frameworks or structures that individuals use to organize and interpret information during the process of understanding and producing discourse These schemata are based on an individual's background knowledge, experiences, and cultural context When using background knowledge in discourse analysis, several types of schemata are commonly employed: ● Cultural schema: Cultural schemata are the shared beliefs, values, norms, and knowledge that individuals within a particular culture possess These schemata help to interpret and make sense of cultural references, symbols, and practices in discourse ● Linguistic schema: Linguistic schemata encompass knowledge of language structures, grammar, vocabulary, and discourse patterns These schemata aid in comprehending and producing coherent and meaningful discourse ● Social schema: Social schemata involve knowledge of social roles, relationships, and interactions They help individuals understand the social dynamics within a discourse context, including power dynamics, politeness strategies, and social 12 norms Social schemata assist in interpreting the intentions and meanings behind utterances and actions ● Discourse genre schema: Discourse genre schemata pertain to knowledge of different types of discourse genres, such as narratives, interviews, debates, or academic papers These schemata guide individuals in recognizing and employing appropriate discourse features, organizational patterns, and language choices specific to each genre ● Topic schema: Topic schemata relate to an individual's knowledge and understanding of a particular subject or topic These schemata influence comprehension and interpretation by providing background information, context, and expectations related to the topic being discussed in the discourse By utilizing these various schemata, individuals can draw upon their background knowledge to make predictions, infer meaning, and create coherent interpretations of discourse The activation and application of schemata contribute to effective communication and comprehension in discourse analysis Summary There are three aspects of the process of interpreting: computing the communicative function, using socio-cultural knowledge and determining the inferences to be made, apart from the features of context, which influence the way we comprehend discourse Computing communicative functions may take place top-down or bottom-up Using background knowledge on socio-cultural knowledge is based on analogy with what we have experienced or known in the past However, this knowledge has to be organised in some ways that are readily available to the discourse comprehension 13 Though the terms used are different and stem from different schools of ideals, they are essentially the same Default elements are those that are set in advance A frame is a structure with slots to be filled in Scripts can be best used to describe event sequences A scenario is just like that of a film, where people can expect what roles are playing out A scheme is a kind of structure which needs to be filled in with elements 14