THÔNG TIN TÀI LIỆU
ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI TRỨÒNG ĐẠI NGOẠI a HỌC ■ ■ NGỮ Đề tài đặc ■ biệt ■ cấp Đại học Quốc gia NGHIÊN CỨU PHƯƠNG PHÁP DẠY - HỌC CÁC MƠN LÝ THUYẾT THUỘC CHƯƠNG TRÌNH ĐÀO TẠO c NHÂN NGOẠI NGỮ THEO QUAN ĐlỂM l ấ y n g i h ọ c l m t r u n g t â m Mã SỐ: QG 97.02 Đơn vị chủ trì Trường Đại học Ngoại Ngữ - Đại học Quốc gia Hà nội sơ Dồ BÀI GIẢNG Bộ WI0N PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGƠN Dùng cho sinh viên Khoa Ngơn ngữ Văn hoá Anh - Mỹ Đ Ạ I HOC Q U Ố C G IA HÀ NỘI Tâ m t h ô n g tin thư v iệ n trung P T / A Ằ HÀ NỘI 1999 Nguyễn Hoà M.A Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội N G U Y Ễ N H O À , M.A H E A D O F E N G L IS H L IN G U IS T IC S D IV IS IO N CFL - VNU AN INTRODUCTION TO DISCOURSE ANALYSIS CHAPTER A N IN T R O D U C T IO N T O D IS C O U R S E A N A L Y S IS The subject matter of discourse analysis Brown and Y ule (1983; viii) rightly remark: The term “discourse analysis” has come to be used with a wide ran qe o f meanings which cover a wide range o f activities at the intersection o f many disciplines from sociolinguistics, philosophical linguistics to computational linguistics Basically, three distinct strands o f discourse analysis are text grammar conversation analysis pragmatics discourse analysis is a study of how and for w hat purposes language is used in a certain context of situation and the linguistic m eans to carry out these purposes The view prevailing: speakers/writers are put in the centerstage of cormrumiciilion speakers/writers who have topics, presuppositions, who assign information structure and who make inferences Iicaiers/icaders interpret and draw inferences IcL'lurcs ill discourse analysis draft for Millions of C R-, I INI J Implications of discourse analysis 2.1 DA: to explain many problems the structural approach fails to account for such as the use of definite article, reference, substitution and ellipsis Consider: e.g.: There are too many loose ends, too many left overs Too much Hanging over his head “Too much” “might” be wrong because it does not count as a sentence, occurring between two stops 2.2 The use of the definite article in the following example: / saw' a dog The dog was black and white The substitution of “the” by “tf” will not render the sentence ungrammatical but we will feel that the two sentences not “text” or “discourse The use of the definite article is determined by the link between the two sentences With the development of pragmatics, it has become possible to provide an account of textual meanings, often referred to as implicature Consider the example offered by Brown and Yule (1983) e.tf.: I saw Smith having dinner with a woman yesterday! Depending on the role relationships between the two participants, it would be possible to interpret the utterance as a piece of good news, or a warning to a woman whose husband has been going out with his girl friend prepared by Iiguyenhoa 1998 eclures in discourse analysis Jrafc for students of CFL, HNU 3 Discourse vs Text Text: Originally, the term “text": a type of linguistics unit larger than the sentence as a result of linguist’s dissatisfaction with the traditional understanding of linguistic levels where the sentence was generally regarded as the largest unit Two approaches to text “The verbal record o f a communicative act” (Brown and Yule, 1983: 6), or as “the linguistic product o f a communicative p r o c e s s (Widdowson, 1984: 100) The 2nd approach tends to see text as a semantic or communicative category Halliday and Hasan, 1976 view text as a “semantic unit” characterised by cohesion or a framework that is logical and general De Beaugrande and Dressier (1981: 3) define text as a “co m m u n ica tive o ccu rren ce w hich p o ssess seven co n stitu tive co n d itio n s o f textu a l c o m m u n ic a tio n , viz., co hesion, co h eren ce, inten tio n a lity, a ccep ta b ility, in fo rm a tivity , situ a tio n a lity a n d intertextu a ỉity prepared by nguyenhoa 1998 lectures in discourse analysis draft for students of CFL, HNU Discourse: For Brown and Yule (1983 1) “ d isco u rse is language in use Widdowson made a distiction between text and discourse through the following example: A: Did you vote Labour or Liberal, Peter ? B: I didn't register, mate Widdowson (1984: 4): D isco u rse is a co m m u n ica tive p ro cess by m eans o f interaction Its situ a tio n a l outcom e is a change in a state o f a ffairs: inform ation is conveyed, in ten tio n s m ade clear, its linguistic p ro d u ct is T e x t (1984: 100) IKcpurciJ by nguycnltou 1998 for students of CFL, HNU lectures in discourse analysis draft The functions of language 4.1 Transactional to express the content of what we say or speak 4.2 Interactional to convey personal attitudes or establishing social relations Other pairs of terms: “representative / expressive” (suggested by Buhler (1934)); “referential / emotive” (Jakobson (1960) “ideational Ỉ interpersonal” (Halliday), -“descriptive / social-expressive” (Lyons (1977) Spoken lan g u ag e is p rim arily interactional W ritten language purposes prepared by nguyenhou is used p rim arily for transactional lectures in discourse analysis drulì for students of CFL, HNU Spoken and Written language 5.1 M anner o f production Speakers: • Voice quality • Paralinguistic features • Control, process, and monitor communication Writer: • reread what was written, choose wording • little pressure • Do not know reaction or response o f reader prepuicd by nguyenhou 1998 luclurcs in discourse analysis draft fur students of CFL, HNU 5.2 The representatioti o f discourse: text A written text may use different type-face, on different size of paper For example : “Nothing compares \ Other examples such as: billboards, titles, headings, subdivisions and sub-headings Spoken texts A tape-recording as a representation Recorded noise, laughter arc irrelevant In general, a transcription: the best record of the communicative Brown and Yule raise the issue of whether we should render /greipbritin/ as “grape britain" or “great britain Such things as pauses, the speaker’s voice, sex, intonation, gestures or the paralinguistic means are lost prepared by nguyenhoa 1998 Icctures in discourse analysis draft for students of CFL, HNU 5.3 Differences in form s between written and spoken language Brown and Yule (1983) a The syntax of spoken language is typically much less slructured than that of written language i spoken language contains many incomplete sentences, often simple sequences of phrases: e.g.: where to, mate? home ii spoken language typically contains rather little subordination, “and” is a very common co-ordinator in spoken language iii in conversational speech, where sentential syntax can be observed, active declarative forms are normally found a In written language an extensive set of metalingual markers exists to mark relationships between clauses (that-clauses, when and while, besides, moreover, however), in spoken language, the use of “and, but, then” is frequent: / was so tired, and I had to go home, rather than “because I was tired, I had to go home” b in written language, rather heavily premodified noun phrases occur frequently, such as: The federal ALP caucus aboriginal affairs committee c topic-comment structures are quite common in spoken language These people, they like drinking beer d in formal speech, the use of passive constructions is relatively infrequent Active constructions are noticeable, as in: Oh everything they in Edinburgh + they it fa r slowly e in chat about the immediate environment, the speaker may rely on gaze direction to supply a referent: (looking at the car) beautiful, isn't if? picpuicd by nguyenhoa 1998 tortures in discource analysis dfafl _ for students o f CFL, HNU 97 CHAPTER TOWARDS A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK Opening remarks The study of discourse - that is, the level of language performance beyond that of the sentence, considered in its context, is closed linked to the culture of its speakers Language represents the most profound manifestation of a culture, and people’s values systems Clyne (1994: 2) suggests that in consideration of the impact and roles of cultural values in discourse, we should keep in mind the various major functions of language: a It is the most important medium of human communication Through language, we express information, ideas, emotions, attitudes, and prejudices, among other things b It is a means of identification Through language, we indicated group membership and mark group boundaries, whether at the national, regional, or local, ethnic, political, or religious level c It is a means of cognitive development for children and of conceptual development for adults The way in which we use language enables children to experience the reality of the world around them, and facilitates the development of new concepts by adults d It is an instrumentation of action As Austin (1962, 1963) has shown, certain important acts are performed purely linguistically These include promises and apologies — prepared by nguyenhoa 1998 gBWet in discourse analysis for students ofC FL, HNU 98 For Williams (1981: 11) culture is the “whole way o f life o f a distinct people As far as Richards et al are concerned, the culture of a people is their “total set o f beliefs, attitudes, customs, behaviour, social habits Kluckhohn (1951: 86) sees culture as “patterned ways o f thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements o f hitman groups, including their embodiment in artifacts; the essential core o f culture consists o f traditional ideas and especially their attached values' Rokeach (1968: 160) defines values as: “internalised standards(s) fo r guiding action an enduring belief that a specific mode o f conduct or end-state o f existence is personally and socially preferable to alternative modes o f conduct or end'states o f existence” prepared by nguyenhoa 1998 na in discourse analysis Ị for students ofCFL, HNU 99 Approaches to discourse analysis a the C o n tra stive A pproach E b the In terla n g u a g e A p p ro a ch c the In ter-a ctive In ter-cu ltu l A p p ro a ch State of the art Discourse analysis deals with language in us linked to conversation analysis and pragmatics Early discourse analysis was text grammar or text linguistics, concerned essentially with cohesion and coherence in texts 3.1 Conversation analysis.) The other mechanism is adjacency pairs, which are the two-part exchange, where the first speaker initiates the first of the pair and, having been the hearer, responds with the second part of the pair Some examples are: a Invitation or request - acceptance or refusal b Accusation - denial or admission c Greeting - greeting d farewell - farewell e summons - answer prepared by nguyenhoa 1998 briure* in discourse analysis I w f l for students of CFL, HNU _ 100 Ì Speech acts and co-operative principle Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) see speech acts as comprising (see lecture 5): a locution the actual form of an utterance b illocutionthe communicative force of the utterance; and c perlocution- the communicative effect of the utterance An attempt made to explain the high degree of implicitness in conversation and the required relation between (rule-governed) meaning and force is Grice’s Co-operative Principle (1967), which contains categories of maxims: quantity, quality, relation and manner Leech (1983) offered the Politeness Principle with maxim of tacty g e n e ro sity , approbatioriy m o d esty, agreem en t, and sym p a th y, and an Iro n y p rin cip le Brown and Levinson suggest some politeness strategies, offering a degree of security and avoiding a face-threatening action They are: bald on-record, positive politeness, negative politeness and being silent prepared by nguyenhou 1998 U p m iu discourse analysis WL for students o fQ -L , IINU 101 _ Ktfed on the interaction between two interlocutors in a speech went, Bayrataroglu (1991) extends the framework to include the lotion of interactional imbalance, formulated as: I boosting face of selfb threatening fact of selfdegrading c boosting face of selfcompliments d threatening face of selfaccusation/criticism 3.3 Face-boosting act/self: e.g boasting Face threatening act/self: e.g self' Face boosting Face threatening act/other: act/other: e.g e.g Contrastive pragmatics The speech acts investigated are mostly: promising, requesting, thanking, apologising, complimenting, complaining or apologising 3.4 Cross-cultural spoken discourse analysis prepared by nguyenhoa 1998 twttires in discourse analysis m i for students of CFL, HNU 102 35 Cross-cultural written discourse Kaplan (1972) offers a linear (e.g English) with the main idea positioned first in the paragraph b circular, with the topic looked at from different tangents (e.g Oriental languages c parallel, with the first idea completed in the second part (e.g Semitic) d freedom to digress and to introduce “extraneous” material (e.g Romance languages) e similar to (d) but with different in lengths, parenthetical amplifications of subordinate elements, and no “rounding o ff’, (e.g Russian) Cultural values 4.5 Hofstede's study project Hofstede postulated four dimensions: power distance, avoidance prepared by nguyenhoa individualism, 1998 masculinity, and uncertainty lectures in discourse analysis inixl for students of CFL, HNU 4.2 Clyne's discourse/cultural parameters 4.2.1 Form vs content 4.2.2 Verbal vs literate 4.2.3 Rhythm of discourse 4.2.4 Directionality 4.2.5 Abstractness vs concreteness A framework for discourse analysis Framework should be able to cover both discourse patterns and discourse expectations based on an interdisciplinary base, prepared by Iiguyenhou 1998 103 lectures in discourse analysis fur students of CFL, HNU dnA2 104 and should, according to Clyne (1994: 196-197), include, in addition to the established parts o f phonology, syntax and semanticsỈ a A global description of the appropriate discourse-cultures, according to the parameters form/content, oral/literate, rhythm, directionality, and abstractness/concreteness This is at a high level of generality, one that provides a framework to understand tendencies and preferences in actual discourse At a lower levei, this would include: Discourse rules, rules for organising written discourse Channel/medium rules, indicating whether communication for a particular purpose in a specific situation will take place in face-to face interaction, over the phone, in freely constructed or formulaic letters, or through the completion of written forms Linguistic creativity rules, governing the use of riddles, limericks, puns and verbal irony in the culture b A global description of interaction-related aspects of the core values of the cultures, e.g harmony, charity, respect, modesty, restraint, networks of mutual obligations, role of language in the culture, tolerance for silence and ambiguity, and the Hofstede cultural value dimensions: power distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity c An inter-cultural model of turn-taking d Inter-cultural tendencies in pragmatic usage and rules for the performance of particular speech acts in a given culture or region At a lower level, this includes formulaic routines which can be summarised contrastively: prepared by nguyenhoa 1998 lectures in discourse analysis fnr students of CFL, HNl I draft 105 a The rules exist in one language but not in the other - e.g Indonesian salamat tìnẹẹal by someone leaving to the person staying behind, or the Italian buon appetito to mark the beginning of a meal, which has no Bnglish equivalents b Formulae of completely different structures employed to realise a speech act in different languages - e.g Excuse me, German A u f Wiedersehen for leave-taking at a restaurant table c Formulaic of opposite structures used for a speech act in different languages - e.g English Is this seat taken ?, German 1st dieser Platz noch fr e il an its equivalents in many other continental European languages d Formulae of corresponding structures employed for different speech acts - e.g How are you (going)? and its translations e Formulae of corresponding structures used to realise speech acts with a diametrically opposed intention - e.g In response to a request to speak to X, English SIhe's on the phone is a negative response and SIhe's speaking is an affirmative one, while in German, it is the other way round, ist am Apparat (s/he’s on the phone) is affirmative, while Er/Sie spricht is negative prcpurcd by nguyenhoa 1998 lectures in dncoune analysis draft for students of CFL, HNU 106 Conclusion Brown and Yule: the term “discourse analysis'’ has come to be used with a wide range o f meanings which cover a wide range o f activities at the intersection o f many disciplines from sociolinguistics, philosophical linguistics to computational linguistics Candin (1981) suggests that a negotiation of meaning is necessary in all intercultural situations Larry i) the sense of self; ii) the sense of other; iii) a sense of the relationship between self and the other; iv) a sense of the setting/ social situation; and v) a sense of the goal or objective Educational implications The teachers must first be aware of the cultural differences Secondly, course materials must have the pragmatic and discourse contents incorporated to make them relevant to real life situations prcpurul by nguycnlmu 1998 lectures in discourse analysis (iruft for sludcnls o fC F L , HNU 107 Our last point is that we hope that discourse analysis undertaken in the manner presented and suggested in this series of lectures may give the students an understanding of the workings of language in use, and the nature of that complex cognitive, cultural and social phenomenon we call discourse (Brown and Yule 1983: 271) prcpiircil by nguyenhou lectures in ditcourae analysis for students of CFL, HNU draft? 108 REFERENCES: Austin, J.L (1962) H ow to D o Things with Words Oxford: Claren Press Bartlett, F c (1980) Remembering Cambridge: CUP Usage: politeness phenomena in (ed.) E N G oogy Bremer, K et al (1988) Achieving Understanding in Vol I o f Final Report o f European Science Foundation project on Second Lanuguge acquisition by Adult Immigrants, Strabourge and London: ESF Brown, G and Y ule, G, (1983) Discourse Analysis, Cambridge: CIJP Brown, p & Levinson, s c (1 ) Universals in Language Buhler, K (1934) Sprachtbeorie Gustav: Jena Chafe, w L (1970) D iscourse Structure unci Human Knowledge in (ed.) J B Carrols & R o Freedle Language Comprehension and the Acquisition o f Knowledge Washington; W iley Clyne, M (1994) Cultural Values in Discourse CUP Couỉhard M (1977) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis London; Longman Coulmas, F (ed.) (1978) Conversation Routine The Hague: Mouton de Đeaugrande, R & Dressier, w u (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics London: Longman de Beaugrande, R (1980) Text, D iscourse and Process London: Longman Farrell, L (1994) A Contrastive Study o f Chilean and Vietnamese Students writing for the VCE Ph.D., M onash University Firth, J R (1957) papers in Linguistics OUP Garrod, s & Sanford, A J (1977) Interpreting Anaphoric relations: The integration o f Semantic Information while Reading in “Journal o f Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior" 16: 7 -9 Givon, T (1976) Topic, pronoun and Grammatical Agreem ent in (ed ) C.N Li prepared by nguyenhoa lectures in dũcoune analysis draft for sludents of CFL, HNU 109 Grice, H p (1 ) Logic and Conversation in (eds.) p Cole & J Morgan Syntax m i Semantics 3: Speech A cts N ew York: Academ ic Press Gumperz, J J (1977 Socicultural Knowledge in Conversational Inference in (ed.) M Saville-Troike Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Semantic, (1977 Washington: Georgetown University Press Gumperz, J J (1982) D iscourse Strategies Cambridge: CUP Halliday, M A K & Hasan R (1976) Cohesion in English London: Longman Halliday M A K (1973) Explorations in the Functions o f Language London: Longman Hatch (ed.) Second Language Acquisition Rowley: Newbury House Hatch, E, M (1978) D iscourse Analysis and Second Language Acquisition in E M Hatch, E, M (1992) D iscourse and Language Education , CUP Hofstede, G (1984) Culture's Consequences New York: Sage Hymes D (1964) Tow ard ethnographies o f Communicative Events in (ed.) p p Gigliolo Jakobson, G Closing Statements: Linguistics and Poetics in (ed.) T, A Sebeok Style and Language Cambridge, Mass.; M I.T Press Kaplan R B Cultural Thought in Inter-Cultural Education in Language Learning , Vol X VI, N os & Keenan E o & Schiefflin B (1976) Topic as a Discourse Notion in Li c N (ed.) Subject and Topic N ew York: A cadem ic Press Kluckhohn, c (1951) The Study o f Culture in D Learner and H D Lasswell (eds.) The Policy o f Sciences Stanford University Press Kluckhohn, F R & Strodtbeck, F L (1961) Variations in value Orientations Evanson, 111,: R ow, Peterson and Co Leech, G (1983) Principles o f Pragm atics N ew York: Longman Levinson, s c (1 ) speech A ct Theory: The State o f the Al t in Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts 13: 5-24 prepared by nguyenhoa 1998 lectures in difcoune analysis draft for students of CFL, HNU 110 Lyons, J (1977) Semantics CUP Mann, w c , and H iom pson, s A (1987) Rhetorical Structure Theory: a theory o f text organisation Information Sciences Institute, u s e M insky, M (1975) A Framework for representing Knowledge in (ed.) W inston, p H The P sychology o f Computer V ision N ew York: McGraw-Hill Nguyen Phuong Linh (1990) Why They Rarely Say Thank You in Journal o f Vietnamese Studies (3), -4 Palmer J A (1983a) Getting into Text: Cohesion in Cross Currents X J Palmer J A (1983b) Getting into Text: Coherence in Cross Currents X Prince, E f (1981) Tow ard a Taxonomy o f given-new Information in (ed.) p Cole Radical Pragmatics N ew York: A cadem ic Press Quirk, R., Greenbaum, s , Leech G and Svartvik, J (1972) A Grammar o f Contemporary English London; Longman Richards er al (1985) Longman's Dictionary o f Applied Linguistics Harlow: Longman Rokeach, M (1968) Beliefs Attitudes and Values, San Francisco; Jossey-Bass Rumelhart, D E (1975) N otes on a Schema fo r Stories in (eds.) D Bobrow & A Collins Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science New York: A cadem ic Press Sanford, A J & Garrod, s c (1981) Understanding Written Language Chchester; W iley Scollon, R & Scollon, s (1981J N arrative, Litercy and Face in Interethnic Comunication Norwood: A blex Searle, J R (1969) Speech Acts CXJP Searle, J R , & Kiefer, F & Bierwisch, M (eds.) (1980) Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics Dordecht: reidel prepared by nguyenhoa 1998 lectures in discourse tuwlysii draft Smith, L.E for siuduiiis of CFL, HNl) til (1 ), Discourse Strategies and Cross-cultural Communication in (ed.) L E Smith “Discourse Across Cultures” pp 1-7 Exeter; Prentice Hall International Ltd Tannen, D (1 9 ) W hat's in a Frame? Surface Evidence fo r Underlying Expectations in (ed.) R o Freedle (1979) N ew D irections in Discourse Processing Valdes, J.M (ed.) 1986, Culture Bound CUP van Dijk, T A (1977) Text and Context London: Longman W iddowson, H G (1979) Explorations in A pplied Linguistics OUP Wierzbicka, A (1985) A Semantic Metalanguage fo r a Cross-cultural Comparison o f Speech A cts and Speech Genres in Language in Society 14,491 -514 W illiam s, R (1981) Culture Glasgow: Fontana prepared by nguyenhoa 1998 ... Vietnam Also, they could not figure out who the middlemen are H đ A ! h o c G U Õ C G IA HÀ NỎI TRUNG TÂM THONG TIN ĨHƯ VIÉN prepared by nguyenhoa, 1998 lectures in discourse analysts draft for students... society is nothingnew.The armed forces are still recoiling from the mere presence, let alone (he theoretical equality of women while some units have integrated the genders effectively Military,... reasơning T h e co -operative p rin cip le G rice (1967): T he principle com prises four m axim s: quantity, quality, relation and m anner M a ke y o u r co n versational contribution such a s is
Ngày đăng: 18/03/2021, 16:29
Xem thêm: