Dimensions in Discourse: Elementary to Essentials

Study Material

On

Discourse Analysis

( This material is an extract from the Book ‘Dimensions in Discourse : Elementary to Essentials’ )

Content

1. Towards Understanding Discourse

2. The Concept of Text

3. Lexical and Grammatical Links

4. Kinds of Discourse

5. Approaches to Discourse

6. Cohesive Devices

7. Pragmatics

8. Speech Acts

9. Cooperative Principles

10. Politeness Maxims

11. Discourse in Use

12. The Scope of Discourse.

13. Practical Discourse

14. Exercises in Discourse Analysis

15. Conclusion

References

Chapter 1

Introduction

Towards Understanding Discourse

Discourse Analysis is an art of analyzing of anything that is written or spoken in order to put the piece of communication in proper perspective. It involves an honest application of mind, exercise of sense and involvement of cultural ethos. It is deeply contextualized in a sense that anything written or spoken emerges out of a context and while analyzing such a speech event the practitioner of discourse is expected to bear in mind the ‘the actual ‘ situations which might have forced such a speech event to emerge. If there is any devoid of principles related to context, the analysis faces the risk of being perceived to be prejudiced.

Before we move on to discuss further on this line, it is essential, for the purpose of clarity to explain in simple terms what is generally understood to be ‘discourse’. The terms ‘discourse’ is used in the academic circle today more as a term of convenience to refer to anything that is written or spoken. The written or spoken matter or material could be in printed form or spoken form or either of which could be even in digital form. The size or length of the discourse is not at all a matter of concern. But, the yardstick on which a discourse is evaluated is the principle of meaning. In other words ‘if anything that is written or spoken lends itself to interpretation of meaning by adhering to the norms of cultural exposition of meaning then that written part or spoken material could be rightfully called ‘discourse’. This is a qualified statement in a sense that it expects a piece of communication of situation to ‘adhere’ to some common standards of commonsense test.

But, in loose and liberal sense, a discourse could be anything which is written or spoken irrespective of it being perceived as a contribution to meaning. As most of us agree meaning is relational and conditional. Meaning making process is arguably located in culture. Hence in liberal sense, expectation of meaning should be an implied condition to assert if a piece is a discourse or not.

Discourse is an intellectual participation in dissemination of ideas, assimilation of common principles and negotiation of meanings. The level of discourse varies from context to context being deeply influenced by cultural and social norms. Having discussed ‘discourse’ from common man’s perspective let us move a step forward to understand this essentially contested discipline from different linguists’ perspectives.

Analyzing a discourse

According to Zelling Harris discourse analysis is an art of looking beyond the boundaries of language to bring out the hidden motivation behind the texts. Language in a discourse is a gateway to the text which includes both substance and content. The written words, phrases and sentences contribute to the concept of cohesion and ultimately make sense. In other words, analyzing a discourse is a journey through with the destination of meaning is reached. Hence it is rightfully called a meaning making process.

Meaning is arrived at through relative interpretation. It is essential to know how each word in a sentence is connected to other words within the same boundary of sentence to appreciate and understand the contributory meaning. This kind of relative interpretation of the meanings of words is what is essentially called ‘analysis of discourse’. In this attempt to bring the meaning out of the written words it is to be borne in mind the contexts where the words are located. Quite often understandably the contexts where the words appear contribute to the existing meaning of the words. Sometimes the meanings implied in words are in contrast with meaning denotated by context. In such apparently conflicting situations the contextual meaning presides over the implied meaning.

Interpretation of text is often motivated by factors related to social, political, geographical and cultural issues. Hence the truth behind a text is often the facts of truth perceived by the reader rather than what the text is presumed to have conceived. It is the interpretation which contributes to the content and substance of the text. Before the issues of interpretation are widely discussed it is advisable to have a proper understanding of what ‘ is’ a text and what ‘constitutes’ it.

Chapter 2

The concept of ‘Text’

A text is often quoted as a body of language which is composed of several desperate units. It is a channel through which entry to the world of meaning is possible. A text always has a context of its own. It is subjected to the dictates of time and space. As time changes the text too changes and continues to assume significance and relevance. A text is sometimes called a statement of contemporary world. The contemporariness gives greater degree of relevance to a text. If a text refuses to grow in relation with evolutionary process of the word of ideas then it ceases to exist.

A text may be called a ‘mirror’ as it reflects (or at least expected to reflect) the current of ideas which sweeps across the world of civilization. It is a link between the present and the future. The strength of the text lies in its deep rootedness in the past as the relevance of its is linked to the future. Through the reading of a text a reader gives expression to her/his interpretation in way ‘the schema’ of the reader fits in. In this connection a text provides a context the reader to confirm her/his impressions of the text and contribute to the already existing meaning or confronts the meaning demonstrated. In either way a text engages a reader a faithful companion in the journey of exploration of truth.

Every text has a context. This context is defined as contemporary text. As it is stated earlier the link between contemporariness and the text is the link of logic or reason and through which relevance is established. Several units which are present in the text have to be organized and arranged in a way which defines the soundness of logic.

In an attempt to understand a text it is recommended to have a wider look at what really constitutes it. A text is expected to have a well defined structure. It should have a purpose of its own. It stands on the foundation of character. Though a text is composed of several linguist units all those desperate units should collectively contribute to the wholesomeness of the text.

A text is identified not only by its substance but also by its structure. Substance and structure cannot be separated from each other. Structure is what is visible at the surface level in terms of its appeal and significance and substance is what remains after having ‘read’ the text. A structure may relate to both technical and thematic level. On technical level a text should be organized with a strong logic of linguistic connections. Logic runs as a connecting thread between units of expression.

The idea of text is closely connected to the field of communication. People who engage in the process of communication tend to ignore the fact that their ends of communication are met mainly due to the factors related to the ‘text’ which provides the background. Communication is

not just an arrangement of words or phrases that grammarians would want us to believe. It is much deeper than mere application of grammar. It is a world of context interlinked with purpose, participants, tools, signs and symbols. Though texts are always used as a tool in our analysis of a discourse, it is to be underlined that this tool reveals considerably the tool-user in bringing meaning to the text.

According to a noted linguist Werlich a text ‘is an extended structure of syntactic units such as words, groups, and clauses and textual units that is marked by both coherence among the elements and completion whereas a non-text consists of random sequences of linguistic units such as sentence, paragraphs or sections in any temporal and/ or spatial extension. (1976:23). Fowler who holds puritanical perspective in terms of language use seems to hold a slightly different view point regarding the concept of text. He defines it as something which is ‘made up of sentences, but there exist separate principles of text-construction, beyond the rules for making sentences’. (1991: 59) But, Beaugrande and Dressler are of the notion that a text is a naturally occurring manifestation of language. Text has a part which is visible and another part which so deep. The visible part of the text is called surface text which is actually a set of expressions in use and these expressions make some knowledge explicit whereas some other part of the knowledge implicit. These are multitudes of perspectives defining the function, nature and the changing facts of text.

The concept of text accommodates within its preview the idea of relevance connected to the present . The contemporary relevance is what significantly contributes to the concept of text. Hence it is safe to conclude that contemporaneous is an essential condition to give certain degree of relevance to the text. Hence is text implicitly indicates contemporary context. Though it is made up of a series of sentences a close examination will bring to light that it is a set of mutually relevant communicative fun as observed by Hatim and Mason. It is structured in such a way to achieve an overall rhetorical purpose. Does it mean that text is what is does? It could be. But, it is difficult to arrive a single convincing definition of what constitutes a text.

Text and Cohesion

There is a close connection between text and cohesion. Though the term ‘text’ is at least used as a point of reference to talk about a unit of language, cohesion is what contributes to basic composition of unity. The word ‘unity’ is used here in a very liberal sense. It includes all such parts and segments of a language structure which contribute the making of an idea which supports the structure of language to function its role in a context. In other words, unity is achieved through establishing a link of logic in terms of semantic elements and thereby relating each word of a sentence to the whole part of the body of sentence in a holistic way. The interconnection or the link of harmony between several units of a given sentence is what gives strength, support and relevance to a sentence. The grammatical coherence between words within

a sentence and the same between sentences are to be examined in order to understand the role of unity between words to contribute to meaning and linguistic legitimacy.

According to Halliday and Hasan ‘text’ is a semantic unit which is linked in many ways to the society’s ever pulsating life. A text is a context where in language as a tool is employed to analyze or interpret different social interactions among the members of a community who have common interest, aspirations and hope. Through this participation a text becomes a living entity. A text stands on the foundation of a context. The context is the social reality which defines and defends the very existence of the text.

A text has been for long defined as a communicative occurrence which constantly engages itself with the changing contexts of interpretation. The process of interpretation is the condition of context which imposes its will upon what has been well-determined within the boundaries of a text. A text has to meet certain standards of expectation which includes standards connected to historicity.

Halliday believes that text is not only a semantic unit but also an instance of social interaction. In its social-semantic perspective, text is an object of social exchange of meanings. In this connection, Halliday attempts to merge semiotics with both sociology and linguistics. In other words, text is a sign representation of a socio-cultural event embedded in a context of situation. Context of situation is the semio-socio-cultural environment in which the text unfolds. Text and context are so intimately related that neither concept can be comprehended in the absence of the other.

Context and text

In the considered opinion of Halliday and Hassan texts can’t be approached without referring to the situation as the context ‘in which texts unfold and in which they are to be interpreted’. There are three situational parameters that help the participants of the communication activity make prediction about the ever-growing meanings that are being exchanged. These include: field, tenor and mode of discourse.

Field of discourse refers to what is happening, to the nature of the social action that is taking place. It indicates what that that the participants are engaged in, in which the language figures as essential components. The tenor of discourse refers to ‘who is taking part, to the nature of participants, their statuses and roles’. It also refers to the kinds of role relationship which is obtained among participants , including permanent and temporary relationships of one kind or the other. Tenor of discourse indicates the relationship between discourse participants as manifested in language use. Mode of discourse is s term which refers to ‘ what part the language is playing , what it is the participants are expecting the language to do for them in that situation, they symbolic organization of the text.

Text context of culture is another important factor which merits our attention here. Like context of situation , context of culture is an essential element through which one comprehends texts. Halliday and Hassan (1985:46) point out that :

The context of situation , however, is only the immediate environment. There is also a broader background against which the text has to be interpreted : its context of culture. Any actual context of situation , the particular configuration of field , tenor , and mode that has brought a text into being, is not just a random jumble of features but a totality- a package, so to speak, of things that typically go together in the culture. People do these things on these occasions and attach these meanings and values to them; this is what culture is.

The most direct study of the definition of text was carried out by Beaugrande (1980). In defining the notion of ‘text’ , Beaugrande (1980:11) asserts that the multi-level entity of language must be TEXT, composed of FRAGMENTS which may not be formatted as sentence. In this statement the author asserts that some essential distinctions between text and sentences as a start point. The following passage illustrates these distinctions:

The text is an ACTUAL SYSTEM , while sentences are elements of VIRTUAL SYSTEMS. The sentence is a purely grammatical entity to be defined only the level of syntax. The text, on the other hand, must be defined according to the complete standards of textuality. A text must be relevant to a situation of occurrence, in which a constellation of strategies, expectations and knowledge is active. A text cannot be fully treated as a configuration of morphemes and symbols. It is a manifestation of a human action in which a person intends to create a text and instruct the text receiver to build relationships of various kinds. Texts also serve to monitor , manage, or change a situation. Whereas sentence is not action, and hence, has limited role in human situations ; it is used to instruct people about building syntactic relationships. A text is a progression between states … the knowledge state, emotional state, social state etc., of the text users are subject to change by means of the text. Social conventions apply more directly to texts than to sentences. Psychological features are more relevant to texts than to sentences. (1980:12- 14)

According to Beaugrande believes that the above-mentioned fundamental differences between the text and the sentence have implications for the evaluation of linguistics of the text. Also he differentiates between the two notions – text and sentence as follows: A sentence is either ‘grammatical’ or ‘ungrammatical’ in the sense that it conform to the traditional forms of grammar or departs from it. A text, on the other hand, is either ‘acceptable’ or ‘unacceptable’ according to a complex gradation, not a binary opposition, and contextual motivations are always

relevant. The drawing of distinction between text and sentence has brought into the notion of context into full prominence. While Halliday (1985:12) refers to ‘conext of situation’ Beaugradne describes context as ‘a situation of occurrence in which a constellation of strategies, expectations, and knowledge are active.’ The two definitions are not significantly different; in fact they are almost identical except that Beaugrande’s may seem a bit more empirical.

In addition, Beaugrande and Dressier (1981) give thought to the notion of text. They try to determine what makes the text a unified meaningful whole rather than a mere string of unrelated words and sentences. In this particular work they work they set up seven standards of textuality. A text may be considered a text unless it meets these seven standards. They believe that these standards of textuality enable text analysis to be applicable to a wide variety of areas of practical concern. The textuality of the text depends on the communicative features it contains. They are as follows: cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability informativity, situationality, and intertextuality.

In short, context and text and can never be separated from each other. Context is what determines the relevance of the text by standards of textuality . In other words, Discourse Analysis itself is according to Stubbs ‘is an attempt to study the organization of language above the sentence, or above the clause, and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational exchange or written texts’.

Standards of Textuality

Cohesion is the first standard of textuality. It is the network of lexical, grammatical, and other relations that provide links between various parts of a text. These relations or ties organize a text by requiring the reader to interpret words and expressions by reference to other words and expression in the surrounding sentences and paragraphs. Moreover, it is seen as a non-structural semantic relation, as for example, between a pronoun and its antecedent in a preceding sentence, expressing at each stage in the discourse the point of context with what has gone before. A cohesive devise is the interpretative link between , for example , a pronoun and its antecedent and or two lexically linked NPs, and a series of such times is referred to as a ‘cohesive chain’.

Halliday and Hasan (1976) establish five cohesion categories. They are namely reference, substation, ellipsis , conjunctions and lexical links. Halliday and Hasan (1976:1) present the following examples:

a. Wash and core six cooking apples. Put them into a fireproof dish.b. My axe is blunt. I have to get a sharper one.

c. Did you see John? – yes ______ (omitted)d. They fought a battle. Afterwards it snowed.

In the above examples each sentence is linked to the other by a cohesive link. In each cohesive instance a different cohesive item is implemented. For example, in the first example the two sentences are liked by the pronoun ‘them’, in the second sentence ‘one’ refers anaphorically the noun phrase ‘six cooking apples’, in the first sentence. In (B) this relation is established by the presence of the substitute ‘one’ in the second sentence, which is a counter of the noun ‘axe’ in the first sentence of the same example; in (C) the cohesive relation is achieved by the omission of some element in the second sentence that presupposes the first sentence. In example (D) none of the above relations exist; the conjunction or conjunctive adjunct ‘afterwards’ is not an anaphoric relation like the previous one; it does not instruct the reader to search for the meaning of the element to interpret it as in reference, or the replacement of some linguistic element by a counter or by a bank, as are substitution and ellipsis, ‘ but a specification of the way in which what is to follow is systematically connected to what has gone before’ (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 227)

As for the main cohesion category called lexical cohesion, Halliday and Hasan present the following examples:

‘There is a boy climbing the tree’

a. The boy’s going to fall if he doesn’t not take careb. The lad’s going to fall if he does not take carec. The child’s going to fall if he does not take cared. The idiot’s going to fall if he does not take care.

In example (a) there is a repetition of the same lexical item ‘boy’ in (b) the reiteration takes the form of a synonym or near synonym ‘lad’; in (c), of the superordinate the term ‘child’ ; and in (d), of a general word ‘idiot’.

All these instances have something in common. The commonality is that one lexical item refers back to another, to which it is related by having a common referent.

Intentionality

While cohesion and coherence are to a large extent text-centered, intentionality is user-centered. A text producer normally seeks to achieve a purpose or goal such as persuasion, instruction, request or information based on a given plan. Obviously, cohesion and coherence are taken into

consideration while planning and executing one’s plan. Speakers or writers vary in the degree of success in planning and achieving their purposes.

Acceptability

The receiver’s attitude is that a text is cohesive and coherent. The reader usually supplies information that is missing or unstated. Acceptability is very much sensitive to the social activity the text is fulfilling. A legal contract does not leave much room for inference. It contains what, otherwise, is called redundancies. Poetic language will be viewed as such because it calls on for inferences.

Acceptability is very much affected by the reader’s social and cultural background. The joke of the priest who, on shaving his beard in the morning cut his chin because he was thinking of the sermon he was about to give , and the advise his fellow priest gave him, ‘ cut your sermon short and concentrate on your beard’ , was not very much appreciated by some students belonging to different culture.

Informativity

A text has to contain some new information. A text is informative if it transfers new information, or information that was unknown before. Informativity should be seen as a gradable phenomenon. The degree of informativity varies from participant to participant in the communicative event. Situationality contributes to the informativity of the text. A book written in 1950 has in informativity that was high appropriate then.

Situationality

A text is relevant to a particular social or pragmatic context. Situationality is related to real time and place. Communicative partners as well as their attitudinal state are important for the text’s meaning, purpose and intended effect. Scientific texts share a common situationality, while ideological texts have different siutationalities across languages and cultures.

Intertextuality

The seventh standard of textuality is called intertextuality. A text is related to other texts. Intertextuality refers ‘to the relationship between a given text and other relevant texts encountered in prior experience’. (Neubert and Shreve, 1992:117) These include textual conventions and textual expectations. Some text features have become more and more international ,e.g.medical texts. They exhibit many features that are English-like , even though, they are written in other language.

Text- typology

For long time in the past there was not enough research done to the field of text-topology. This field has developed phenomenally as great emphasis is given to this area. Text-typology aims at grouping texts into categories and types, and at identifying and describing linguistic and conceptual features that texts belonging to a particular group have in common. The definition of term text-type varies between different linguists , but most follow Hatim’s (1990) in relating this concept to communicative intentions. In such an approach, texts are defined as text purose, text producer’s intentions, writer/reader relationships, and medium of communication.

There are innumerable definitions to the notion of text-type. This is because they have dealt with this concept from different aspects. The following quotations present some of the prominent definitions. Werlich (1983:39) defines this notion as follows:

An idealized norm of distinctive text structuring which serves as deep structural matrix of rules and elements for the encoder when responding linguistically to specific aspects of his experience.

Beaugrande and Dressler (1981: 186) define text- type as:

A set of heuristic for producing, predicting, and processing textual occurrences, and hence acts as a prominent determiner of efficiency, effectiveness, and appropriateness

In another context, Beaugrande (1985 : 197)

A text type is a distinctive configuration of relational dominances obtaining between or among elements of : the surface text, the textual world, stored knowledge patterns; and a situation of occurrence.

The following is an overview of a variety of different approaches attempting to classify texts into some major categories and types. Reiss (1976),in her attempt to set up a text typology relevant to translation quality assessment, suggests that texts can be categorized according to their field of discourse, with examples like ‘journalistic’. ‘religious’ , ‘poetic’ and so on.

Another fruitful attempt has been made by Schmidt (1977), who proposes two basic possibilities for the study of text types. One can either start out with the traditionally defined types (literary, poetic, scientific, religious, journalistic etc.,) as observable objects, and try to reconstruct them

through a consistent text theory; or one can begin with a text theory which sets up theoretical types to be compared with empirical samples.

Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) differentiate text-types along ‘functional lines’. They believe that text-types are supposed to perform specific and intended functions and in doing so contribute to process of human and social communication. They follow this line of thought because they view text-types as linguistic product. Unlike the above-mentioned linguists , Werlich (1976), in his published book, A Text Grammar of English bases his classification of texts on criteria called ‘dominant contextual focus’. He explains this notion by saying :

Texts distinctively correlate with the contextual factors in a communication situation. They conventionally focus the addressee’s attention only on specific factors and circumstances from the whole set of factors. Accordingly, texts can be grouped together and generally classified on the basis of their dominant context focus. (Werlich, 1976: 19) Based on this dominant contextual factor Welrich proposes the following five dominant contextual focus that can be observed in any given text:

1. The focus is on factual phenomena such as persons, objects and relations. Texts of this group will be referred to as descriptive texts.

2. The focus is on factual and conceptual phenomena in the temporal context. Texts of this group will be referred to as narrative texts.

3. The focus is on the de-composition analysis into or the composition (synthesis) from constituent elements of concepts of phenomena that the communicants have. Texts of this group will be referred to as expository texts.

4. The focus is on the relation between concepts of phenomena that the communicants have. Texts of this group will be referred to as argumentative texts.

5. The focus is on the composition of observable future behavior, with reference to phenomena, in one of the communicants, that is either in speaker/writer or hearer/ reader. Texts of this group will be referred to as instructive texts.

Hatim (1990, 1997a and 1997b) takes the stand that texts are not most usefully categorized according to their field of discourse, with examples like ‘journalistic’, ‘religious’, ‘poetic’ etc.,

Here, the assumption is that classification of texts ‘based on criteria such as ‘field of discourse’ alone amounts to little more than a statement of subject matter’. And if defined in this way ‘text type will be so broad as to have predictive value, and when attempts are made to narrow the focus of description, we run the risk of ending up with virtually as many text types as there are texts’ (Hatim, 1990:138)

Moreover, classification, on the other hand, based on an over-general notion of text ‘function’ “leads to text types such as literary, poetic, didactic; the categories are too broad and do not admit the possibility of a literary text being didactic and vice versa”.

According to Hatim, one of the problems of text typology is that, however the typology is set up, any real text will display features of more than one type. This ‘multifunctionality’ is the rule rather than the exception, and any useful typology of texts will have to be able to accommodate such diversity’. (Hatim and Mason, 1990 :138). Based on a variety of notions and insights from a number of standard models of text-typology, text processing approaches and ancient disciplines such as rhetoric, as well as from more recent trends in linguistic description such as text linguistics Hatim proposes a method for the classification of texts. In this, Hatim maintains that any given text- when meeting a number of standards of textuality - would have a context, a structure, and a texture. Hatim points out that each of these domains is capable of yielding a set of hypotheses about the text; and when they collaborate, they can construct a text that is able to reflect its overall rhetorical goal. Moreover, it is based on the notion ‘text predominant rhetorical purpose’. To conclude, Hatim, based on the above analysis , distinguishes three main text types namely exposition, instruction and argumentation.

Different types of texts

Texts on the basis of ‘dominant contextual focus’ are divided into different types namely expository, instructional and argumentative texts. These classifications are based on the contextual focus in a sense that the role that context plays can never be ignored. Hatim’s has evolved this classification so to give a comprehensive understanding of different types of texts.

Expository text-type

In this category the contextual focus is either on the decomposition (analysis ) into constituent elements of given concepts or their composition (synthesis) from constituent elements. There are two important variants of this kind of conceptual exposition differentiated , namely; descriptive and narrative texts. In place of ‘concepts’ , description handles ‘objects’ or ‘situations’ , while narrative texts arrange ‘actions’ and ‘events’ in a particular order.

Hatim notes that whereas description and narration are generally easily recognizable , boundaries in other cases are more difficult to establish. What is of importance, here, is the distinction between argumentative texts and conceptual exposition.

According to Hatim, in argumentation, the focus is on what is known as ‘situation managing’. In other words the dominant function of the text is ‘to manage or steer the situation in a manner favourable to the next producer’s goals’. In exposition , on the other hand, the focus is on providing a detached account.

According to Hatim, another distinction is that in an argumentative text, the topic sentence sets the tone of the text and must be expounded. Thus, in distinguishing these two features, the tendency of tone-setters is to display features such as comparison, judgment, and other markers of evaluative texture; whereas the scene setter exposes various aspects of the scene being introduced to be expounded.

Instructional text-type

This is another basic text group. The focus here is on the formation of future behavior in order to regulate through instructions the ways people act or think. Two sub-types have been identified ; instructions with options and instructions without options. Hatim maintains that in this text-type is directed towards influencing opinions or behaviour and to provoking action or reaction. Reiss (1976) draws a comparison between argumentative texts and instructional texts with options. He believes that two types can be treated as operative-type texts. In this respect, Reiss lays down the following principles of operative texts, which text producers have to follow in order to arouse the interest of the reader and succeed in convincing him or her:

1. Comprehensibility (use of short sentences, simple syntax, etc.,)2. Topicality (closeness to life)3. Memorability (rhetorical repetition )4. Suggestivity (manipulation of opinions by exaggeration)5. Emotionality (anxieties and fears are played on, threats and flattery used)6. Language manipulation (propaganda is disguised as information through means such as

linguistic parallelism)7. Plausibility (appeals to authorities , witnesses, experts etc.,)

Despite these similarities, clearer patterns of logical thinking are more apparent in argumentative than in instructional texts, because , given discoursal as well as generic constraints, logical presentation trends to be part and parcel of the argumentative text format.

Characteristics of Argumentative Texts

Following Hatim’s model of text types advocated in this study, the counter argumentative text is a basic form of the major category called ‘argumentative text-type’. Unlike the through- argumentative text, which another form of argumentation characterized by an extensive substantiation of an initial thesis following by a conclusion, couter-argumentative text, which is another form of argumentation characterized by an extensive substantiation of an initial thesis followed by a conclusion, counter-argumentative text involves rebuttal of a cited thesis followed by a substantiation and conclusion. Argument in general and counter-argument in particular engages text users in situation managing, guiding the receiver in a manner favourable to the text producer’s goals.

Counter-argument has particular features that distinguish it from other text types. It is characterized by some linguistic and non-linguistic features that are not in any other text type. In the discussion which follows, an attempt is made to highlight the most significant characteristic of this text type, with a special emphasis placed on the feature ‘text texture’, which is considered the most commonly used cohesive devices in counter- argumentative texts.

The main function of the text form ‘counter-argument’ is rebuttal. According to Hatim, two debating positions are made to confront with each other. The first position is taken by an absent protagonist who represents the ‘thesis cited to be opposed’ , whereas the second one is taken by a present protagonist. The present protagonist states that ‘counter-claim’ and performs the function of orchestrating the debate and steering the receiver in a particular direction. In Hatim’s point of view although rebuttal is universally established form of counter-argumentation, however, different languages handle rebuttal differently in terms of the mechanisms involved. One can ‘rebut’ in any language, but rebuttals as a text procedure, are realized differently in different languages. There will be variations in both the way rebuttal texts are put together. These differences in handing rebuttal, according to Hatim, are believed to result from many factors among which are mismatches between the linguistic systems and conventions of languages. Moreover, different preferences within the same language shall be considered too. In this context Hatim says:

The choice of argumentative strategy is closely bound up with intercultural pragmatic factors such as politeness, or power etc. There is a tendency in certain language and cultures as well as in groups within them, to adopt a more direct through-argumentative style in preference to the more opaque counter-argumentative strategy. (1997 a:52)

The choice of argumentative strategy is closely bound up with intercultural pragmatic factors such as politeness or power. There is a tendency in certain languages and cultures as well as in groups within them, to adopt a more direct through-argumentative style in preference to the more

opaque counter-argumentative strategy. This is the view held by many scholar including Sapir(1956), Kaplan (1983) and Koch (1981). Sapir says:

The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to large extent built up on the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies lives are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached. (1956:69)

Similarly Kaplan (1983) suggests that the way languages present their structure is different from one another and this is due to the fact that speakers/writers of different languages use different means and devices to present information. In his contrastive analysis across languages , Kaplan states:

I am concerned with the notion that speakers of different languages use different devices to present information to establish the relationship among ideas , to show the centrality of one idea as opposed to another ; and to select the most effective means of presentation.(Kaplan, 1983:140-11).

Accordingly, languages differ in terms of their patterns of construction and their rhetorical an linguistic systems. Therefore , the meaning potential and function of argumentative texts of any other languages are always constant and the stylistic , cultural and rhetorical value is inevitably constant as well.

Evaluativeness

Evaluativeness is another characteristic of all variants of argumentation. An argumentative text would have particular evaluative forms of linguistic expression. According to Hatim, the degree of evalutiveness is bound to vary in response to whether and how far is the text is intended to manage or to monitor a given situation. In other words, the degree of evalutiveness is determined by the text type focus.

Text mode

In terms of text mode, counter- argumentative text has as distinctive mode. Text mode is a term used in linguistic studies as a parameter to distinguish one stretch of language from another. According to Halliday and Hassan’s classification, (1985:12), counter-argumentative text, being an evaluative discourse , is written to be read. They believe that counter-argumentative text, unlike a political speech, which is a text written to be aloud, is written to be read silently like those in newspapers , books of various sorts, journals , magazines and etc.,

Text structure

Text structure is a term used in linguistic studies to refer to the compositional plan of a text. Text structure or text hierarchic organization is one of the varieties of aspects of textuality. Receivers of all text types would expect that what they hear or read is structure din some way. All texts are expected to display certain structure formats that correspond to their types. This is because text structure is motivated by contextual factors, which play an important role in determining the structural arrangements of the text in order to display a particular text-type focus.

Hence, from the above discussion it is obvious that not all texts are of the same type. We may distinguish between political texts, legal texts and medical texts; fairy tales, novels and short stories differ from newspaper reports, essays, and scientific papers; food recipes, instructions booklets and advertisements may show similarities but they are not the same, expository texts differ from argumentative texts, etc. All these types of text differ in ways that are somewhat obvious, intuitively, but which nevertheless invite detailed analysis. The development in the fields of language and linguistics, communication and rhetoric, the ethnography of speaking, pragmatics and discourse, etc. have contributed to and influenced our view of text typology. Throughout the last decade, genre analysis, in particular, has enjoyed immense popularity. This field of study has attracted the attention of literary scholars, rhetoricians, sociologists, discourse analysts, cognitive scientists, machine translators, computational linguists, ESP specialists, business communication experts, language teachers of different backgrounds of experiences. Understanding the genres of written communication in one's field is essential to professional success. The function of the genre must be understood from the perspective of the composer or translator who must draw upon knowledge of register and genre to perform effectively.

Chapter Three

Lexical and Grammatical Links

Discourse Analysis is an attempt at analyzing how the coherence and cohesion contribute to the making of meaning. Meaning making process is initiated once the different lexical and semantic units correspond to one another in a manner conditioned by logic. There have been heavily contested debates to decide what is ‘coherence’ and what constitutes ‘cohesion’. For sake of time and space constraints , I don’t want to dwell deep into that hair splitting differences of terminological contestations.

Simply put, the term ‘coherence’ refers to the factors which connect different ideas, events, situations and other content related matter in order to make a discourse well-organized. A discourse contains a series of inter-connected threads of facts. These facts have been organized in such a way that the thread of logic runs over all through the words connecting one another. Logic stands as criteria to decide the rules of inter-connection between words which eventually contribute to meaning.

Coherence is conditioned by several disparate units. The thematic factors including how each idea contributes to the development of one unique whole idea is what gives strength to the discourse. The factors mentioned in the context fall under two categories namely causative and resultant factors. The causative factors are those which suggest the ‘reasons’ behind a fact whereas the resultant factors are suggesting ‘logical culmination’ of the events mentioned.

Coherence is always associated with the links connecting different idea units. It is a semantic property which is obtained as a result of analyzing how each part within a sentence is connected to the other in terms of logic. In other words, it is a network of relations which organize and create a text. More precisely it is the network of conceptual relations which underlie the surface text.

Coherence of a text is a result of the interaction between knowledge presented in the text and the reader’s own knowledge and experience of the world. The reader’s knowledge is influenced by a variety of factors such as age, race, nationality, education, occupation, and political and religious affiliations. If we assume cohesion as a property of text then, coherence is a facet of the reader’s evaluation of a text. Coherence is subjective and judgments concerning it may vary from person to person.

Coherence can be illustrated by casuality as in :

(A) James did not write his examination and (B) he could not complete the course.

Here A is the cause of B.

Cohesion can be illustrated by enablement or reason as in:

(A)James did his hard to find out the answer to that challenging question and (B) and he found the answer ultimately . Here A enabled B or A is the reason that led to B

Now let us turn our attention to the concept of Cohesion. Cohesion is defined in the genre of Discourse Analysis as ‘lexical properties’ which establish relation between words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, essays, chapters and books. Cohesion is more connected with linguistic units. Linguistic links obviously contribute to the establishment of the concept of coherence. Every language operates on a system of structures which is unique but evolving. This system of structures balances the lexical properties used. An analysis of such units is an attempt at appreciating ‘cohesion’.

Cohesive links are of different types. They perform wide variety of function to make the discourse meaningful and engaging. In short, in the meaning making process, the role of cohesive links can never be ignored. Meaning as an object of search shall be achieved only through cohesive links. These links, in general , fall under different known categories. They are as follows:

1. Cumulative Links 2. Alternative Links 3. Adversative Links 4. Illative Link

Cumulative Links are those which ‘combine’ two or more ideas together by using words or phrases such as ‘and, as well as, not only …but also ect.,’ .These words normally relate two or more words or ideas of similar nature together in order to make the two ideas flow into one another to reach the destination of meaning implied. Cumulative error, on the other hand, limits the usefulness of context in applications utilizing contextual information. It is especially a problem in spontaneous speech systems where unexpected input, out-of-domain utterances and missing information are hard to fit into the standard structure of the contextual model.

The link words normally used in this case are plenty in nature. Among them , frequently used words as ‘and’ , as well as’ , ‘ not only but also’, ‘in addition to’ , ‘ further’ and ‘more over’. These words carry the meaning of accommodating certain things much more than what is implied.

Have a look at the following paragraph and examine how these links are used:

Science is a marvelous subject which has its own beauty and purpose. It puts the whole word on the wheel of progress. But it has limitations of its own. Original science often attempts to break through the established notions and while doing so it sometimes ends up in the same place from where it started its journey. Be that as it may, what science has achieved is not more important than what it proposes to achieve.

Alternative links are those which serve as alternatives. It is often placed between two options or choices. Two viable alternatives of equal importance is placed side by side, in order to maintain balance between them, certain words or group of words are often applied. Such words for the reasons of convenience are called ‘alternative links’. These links include words such as ‘or’ , ‘or else’ , either ….or’ , neither ……nor’, ‘otherwise’ or any other words which may fall within the same semantic category of this classification. For the purpose of understanding and better illustration, kindly have a look at the following passage.

The changes happening in this world are often perceived or believed to be faithful reflections of the changing demands of the society necessitated either by the ordinary pace of time or political combinations of the forces indefinable. But truthfully this analysis is neither valid nor it disproved.

Adversative links are those words which occur normally between two words of opposite or contrastive meanings. Those links include words such as ‘but’, ‘still’ ‘yet’ however’ , ‘though’ ‘although’ ‘even though’ etc., These links are often used in between a positive idea and a negative one. These links offer balance to their mutually exclusive and contrastive words. The following passage serves as an example:

Despite the tall claims that technology is inherently revolutionary, we have evidences and records on the contrary. Though, no doubt, the technology has brought about remarkable changes in the lives of men, it failed to effect such impact on the lives of women. This fact makes one wonder if the technology is inherently revolutionary or not. But, it is only time which has to prove this claim wrong permanently.

These links are those which show us the contrast between what has happened and what could have happened under normal circumstances. Contrast is a condition which is arrived at when

there is an occurrence in contrast to the expected lines. These links are used to mark a distinction between the stated opposite values.

Illative links are normally used to ‘infer’ or ‘offer’ conclusion based on the reading of an existing conditions. In these contexts normally two situations are presented. The context which goes before generally leads to the context which follows. The relation between the cause and the effect or action and reaction is vividly illustrated through use of certain words such as ‘hence’ ‘so’ , ‘therefore’, ‘consequently’ etc., The following passage gives the reader an idea related to how these links are used in discourse.

Literature and language have been, for generations, a great source of inspiration to the readers. What starts in an ordinary level in terms of appreciation of the written work reaches the extent of multiple interpretations through application of different standards. Consequently, in this analysis sometime literature is separated from the context in which it was created. As a result of this approach, the scholars who are interested in only language of literature begin to look at the factor of language without giving due importance to ‘context’. Hence, approach, in the considered opinion of many scholars, is called a significant ‘departure’.

Chapter Four

Kinds of Discourse

The term ‘discourse’ is so widely applied that we need to delimit it and identify some of the kinds of discourse that scholars of Discourse Analysis are particularly interested in. Such types include spoken discourses as monologues, dialogue, multilogue and conversation.

A spoken discourse is any discourse that is verbalized or spoken. It is also generally referred to as speech. Every language is basically ‘spoken’, so every social activity we are involved in where speech is used is referred to as spoken discourse. The following instances are some of the examples of spoken discourse: casual conversation, sermon, political campaign, symposium, public lectures, classroom discourse, telephonic conversation, service encounter , sports commentaries and other such items which may fit in the list.

Spoken discourse normally takes place in different forms. We have fact-to-face discourse in which the speakers are together physically. Apart from this, we have distance communication where in the speakers are not necessarily together physically, they are still able to transmit their voice through some other channels such as radio, telephone, video conference etc.,

Monologue specifically refers to a speech situation in which an individual involves in the task of ‘talking’ for a long time either to himself or to the other people who are not responding. It is an extended, uninterrupted speech by one person. The person may be thinking loud or directly addressing to other persons such as audience, a character or a reader. Many a times we get carried away that we express our thoughts aloud even when they are not really addressing some specific people.

Sometimes monologue is used in drama to make the audience or readers know the thought process of a character. It is in short a revelation of what is going on in the mind. This is often referred to as dramatic monologue. However, a dramatic monologue is also called a soliloquy when it refers to a lengthy talk.

Dialogue is a context in which more than two person come together to share their ideas, experiences, thoughts, values and issues. The root of the word ‘dialogue’ can be traced to the Greek ‘dia’ (two) and ‘logos’ (language) which means ‘a communication’ between two or more persons. A dialogue has some socio-cultural characteristics which should not be ignored. For example, in a dialogue the participants involve in turn taking process in their communication. It is in short a skillful exchange through which information is shared, ideas are appreciated, values are strengthened and meeting of hearts is established.

Multilogue refers to a situation in which too many people are engaged in conversation at the same time. This may refer to the situation in which many conversations are happening at one

time within a chat room. This term is also more commonly used to describe a situation in which many participants communicate using the aid of computers, mediated forums etc.,

Conversation is an exchange of information of ideas between two or more people. It may be formal or informal. This is determined by the kind of relationship that exists between the people involved. People involved in the conversation are called conversationalists and in some specific cases they are called ‘interlocutors’.

A conversation is said to be successful if people involved in it share some common grounds such as culture, belief and social norms. Often their conversation is guided by these shared values and beliefs. The most important aspect of conversation is the mutual respect that one has for the other in the course of exchange.

A written discourse is a context wherein the thoughts of the producer are represented graphically on a surface, such as on paper or any other media. It is organized in such a way that similar ideas are put together in sections of the writing called paragraph and each paragraph can usually be summarized in a single sentence which is called ‘topic’ sentence. This sentence forms the nucleus of the written material. All the ideas which the author listed out in a particular write up have been encapsuled in that single topic sentence. The rest of the paragraphs are a merely explanation or illustration which contribute to the development of that sentence.

A group of linguist, who develop interest in the study of written discourse in the tradition of Systemic Linguistics, refers to the study of written discourse as Textlinguistics. Written discourse does have some characteristics which make them essentially different from spoken discourse. They focus on textuality of the discourse.

Chapter Five

Approaches to Discourse Analysis

Discourse Analysis is actually a multidisciplinary subject as a result of which many scholars of different backgrounds involved in this field of interpretation. This branch study intersects with different fields such as sociology, philosophy, psychology, political science and other social sciences. Hence it is not an exclusive areas for the practitioners of linguistics. As a result of these varied backgrounds good many number of approaches have emerged in recent times.

Ethnomethodology is one such as approach which has been long used by anthropologists. The term ‘ethnomethodology’ is a bled of the words ‘ethnography’ and ‘methodology’. It is essentially a branch of anthropology which studies people in their environment. The major focus of this approach is ‘cultural behaviour’ as it is reflected in discourse. Also this approach attempts to study how people make sense of the world that they live in and also how they are able to understand one another to the extent that they are able to exist in an orderly social context.

Ethonomethodological approach was developed by a sociologist named Harold Garfinkel. This approach looks at the organization of practical actions and reasoning, the organization of talk-in-interaction. These scholars are concerned primarily with how the methods by which social order is produced and shared. One thing which is central in this discussion is ‘context’. Their focus is always on the ways in which words are dependent for their meaning on the context in which they are used. This method primarily deals with the organization of practical actions and practical reasoning, the organization of talk-in-interaction, talk-in-interaction within institutional or organizational settings and the study of the work.

Language is an essential part of human social structure. Every day man involves in different sorts of activities to create and shape the world through his interaction. Obviously every language operates in a social world. Speakers, as part of a society, depend on the corpus of practical knowledge which they assumed is shared, or at least partly with others. This is the reason, group of linguists , generally referred to as Functionalists, see language as a social activity being performed in a social world. The primary concern of such linguists , who belong to the school of Sociolinguistics, Systemic Functional Linguistics, Discourse Analysis , Text Linguistics , Critical Discourse Analysis and other branches of similar study is that language is context-dependent and the general context is the world we live in, while the specific contexts are the contexts of a particular usage. Context here includes knowledge of the speaker, his world, the culture, values, expectations and norms.

According to Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, we view and perceive the world in terms of our language. It also stresses that the social reality we experience is unique to our language , since no two languages or cultures shares exactly the same social reality. That is why the terms for specific phenomena in languages do not have precise counterparts in other languages.

Ethnomethodological research has its own peculiar characteristics. This is often called ‘qualitative research’. The goal of a researcher using this approach is to understand local knowledge and practices related to the daily life of the people being investigated. Hence, ethnomodologists do not just conduct their research from a distance. They participate in the life of the people and observe daily interactions among them in formal and informal conversations among groups and individuals. This method of doing research is called participants observation method, the researcher is called a participant-observer.

Conversation Analysis

Conversation Analysis approach deals with the study of talk in interaction. The main purpose of this approach is to describe how conversationalists achieve orderliness in their interaction. It studies how interactions are structured in a sequential manner. It studies instances of talk, which may include institutional discourse such as classroom conversation, doctor-patient interaction, courtroom discourse between lawyers and the judge and other similar situations.

This approach was introduced by Emmanuel Schegloff, Harvey Sacks and Gail Jefferson in the early 1970’s. It was inspired by Ethnomethodology. But, now CA has become a fully established force in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology.

One of the general features of Conversation Analysis is ‘turn- taking’ and ‘turn-allocation’. It has been observed that people involved in a conversation do not just talk in a disorderly manner. A person speaks and after his turn, another person takes the chance. It is not normal in a conversation for one person to talk all the time while others just listen. It is also the case that people are aware when it is their turn to speak. There are some clues to when a speaker’s turn has finished and when another speaker should commence the talk.

Turn taking is the basic characteristic of any normal conversation. Speakers and listeners change their roles in order to begin their speech (Coulthard, 1985: 59). Turn taking mechanisms may vary between cultures and languages. Scholars have identified a set of rules which govern turn taking in discourse. These rules are ingrained in the conventions of language use.

There are signals to turn taking and they are called turn-eliciting signals. Turn construction unit which is normally referred to as TCU is the fundamental segment of speech in conversation. It describes pieces of conversation, which may comprise an entire turn.

Adjacency Pair is a unit of conversation that contains an exchange of one turn each by two speakers. The turns are so related to each other that the first turn requires a range of specific type of response in the second turn. It is a sequence that contains functionally related turns. In order to understand how adjacency pair actually works in a given context of conversation the following examples and illustrations are provided. The Adjacency Pairs listed below actually belong to different categories. This categorization is only for the purpose of understanding and this will

give a reader an insight into the idea of ‘appropriateness’ in the context of communication. Let us have a look at a few instances where their Adjacency Pairs are used.

Question- Answer Pair

Q: Where are you going?

A: I am going to market

Greeting –Response Pair

G: Good day to you

R: Thanks a lot . Same to you too.

Request- Acceptance/Rejection Pair

R: Would you mind brining me a glass of wather?

A: yes! I do with all pleasure

Inform – Acknowledgement Pair

I : You are expected to take the examination next week.

A: Okay, I will do that.

Apology- Acceptance/Rejection Pair

A: I am extremely sorry for whatever happened.

R: That is alright. I could understand that.

Congratulations – Response Pair

C: Good work. Congratulations.

R: Thanks

Insertion sequence is a sequence of turns which intervene between the first and the second parts of an adjacency pair. It is a kind of delay in which the response expected is not given, rather, an entirely different, though related response is given.

In this context, it is worth mentioning an important trend in the study of discourse which was introduced by a group of scholars in the University of Birmingham in the early 1970’s. The idea started with the study of classroom discourse and later became a possible theory for the study of any human interaction. The study undertaken by John Sinclair and Malcolm Coulthard has proposed a scale for the study of the structure of discourse in the classroom.

According to Sinclair and Coulthard’s work which is said to be one of earliest descriptive works on the classroom discourse as an institutional discourse. The work was based on Halliday’s scale and category. Discourse was seen by them as a level of language higher than grammar. They did an extensive study of the language used by teachers and pupils in classroom in Britain and proposed a five scale category of discourse namely lesson, transaction, exchange, moves and acts.

Lesson is the highest unit in the discourse rank scale. It is everything that happens in the classroom from the point the teacher enters till he leaves. The structure of the lesson is determined by several factors. These include pupil’s responses to the teachers’ instructions and teachers’ ability to respond to pupils’ responses.

Transaction is next only to lesson. It is the basic unit of interaction. It has to do with minimal contribution made by the participants in a discourse. Every transaction has an opening, which is usually a greeting and it possibly closes with a greeting as well.

An exchange is the whole dialogue between the teacher and the pupils it is the fundamental unit that realizes social interaction (Taiwo and Salami, 2007: 29). The structure of a typical exchange is an initiation followed by a response and followed by a follow-up. Initiation simply refers to the starting up of a topic by a teacher when he enters the classroom. The teacher expects his initiation to elicit a kind of response from the students. An initiation is usually a question or a comment. Teachers use questions a lot for initiating responses from their pupils. Then the response will come in the form of an answer to the question.

The term ‘move’ refers to the contribution made by one of the participants in the discourse at a point in time. Speakers take turn in conversation and when they have the floor, they speak for a specific period of time before another speaker takes over.

Act is the smallest unit of the discourse structure. According to Sinclair and Coulthard (1992:4). ‘discourse acts are typically one free clause plus any subordinate clauses, but there are certain closed classes where we can specify almost all the possible realizations which consist of single words or groups’. Acts are defined principally by their functions. Sinclari and Coulthard

recognized around twenty two classes of act in the classroom discourse, while Olateju (1998) recognized around twenty four classes of act.

Ethnographic based approach is said to one the earliest approaches to the study of Discourse Analysis. Although there are countless approaches to discourse analysis, most of them draw their source of inspiration from anthropology and social psychology. They regard social context as the central aspect of communication. Present ethnographic approaches to discourse owe much to an American anthropological linguistic tradition that gave rise to the work of scholars like Gumperz and Hymes (1986) whose ‘ethnography of communication’ aims to provide a description of how members of a particular community are expected to perform linguistically in order to be considered ‘competent’ members. Communicative competence involves not just mastery of the linguistic system but the ability to use language in conjunction with social practices and social identities in ways which others in the community will recognize them to perform a myriad of social activities such as engaging in small talk, making transactions, joking, arguing, teasing and warning. It is learnt that within communities through participating in communication, anticipating other’s response and incorporating generalities into our own repertoire of actions and meanings . (Mead 1934)

Corpus based discourse analysis works with large amounts of machine-readable text. It was initially used primarily in the fields of lexicography and grammar. It is only relatively recently that there have been extensive applications of corpus approaches to discourse analysis. (Baker 2006). The earliest initiatives in corpus-based analysis of language use began with the creation of large general corpora representing language use in a variety of contexts, both written as well as spoken to draw insights from observations about how people use language both in terms of lexico-grammar features and their functional variations. However, corpus development over the years has changed in several important ways. First the size of the corpora has become much greater. The ‘Bank of English’ corpus contains about 450 million words whereas the British National Corpus has about 100 million words. These large-scale general corpora are effective and reliable in providing insightful information about the preferred use of specific lexico-grammatical patterns in everyday language use.

The most important aspect of this approach is that it makes it possible for the linguists and discourse analysts to go beyond the analysis of sentences and short texts to analysis of huge amounts of texts. It is thereby possible to corroborate intuitions about individual instantiations concerning the functional value of particular language patters by recourse to very large number of instance. Work with large corpora has demonstrated that language follows to a large extent very regular patterns consisting of pre-constructed phrases. This is referred to as the ‘idiom principle’ by Sinclair (1991), in contrast to the ‘open choice’ principle which refers to word-by-word ‘slot and filler’ combinations. According to Sinclair , speakers primarily adhere to the

idiom principle and only switch to the open choice principle when some constraint occurs which makes the idiom principle fail to function.

Multimodal discourse analysis is an approach wherein many modes of communication available for social interaction will be discussed. Although the earlier approaches focus specifically on context and text, one factor that is still restrictive in all of them is the fact that they all take textual data to be primary resource for social interaction. There is widespread belief now that textual data is not necessarily the most important mode used for the construction and interpretations of social meaning.

Critical Discourse Analysis is also one of the later approaches to Discourse Analysis. This approach is highly debated and widely discussed. According to this approach, language is not an abstract entity. It is related to the world in which it is produced in the sense that meaning is derived from the historical, social and political contexts in which a text is produced. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) draws its attention to power imbalances, social inequities, and the manipulative tendency people have in discursive practice.

CDA is an approach that emphasizes the study of language and discourses in social institutions. It draws on poststructuralist discourse theory and critical linguistics to focus on how social relations, identity, knowledge and power are constructed through written and spoken texts in different linguistic contexts.

It is founded on the idea that there is unequal access to linguistics and social resources. The discipline developed within several disciplines in humanities and social sciences, such as Pragmatics, Linguistics, Sociolinguistics ,Sociology, Psychology, Stylistics, Anthropology and Ethnography.

Scholars working in the field of CDA find a very strong relationship between language and ideology. The word ‘ideology’ is used in many discipline with different, but overlapping shades of meaning. Ideology simply refers to attitudes, set of beliefs, values and doctrines with reference to religious, political, social and economic life which shape the individual’s and group’s perception and through which reality is constructed and interpreted. It is the belief of scholars in CDA that every instance of language use is produced from an ideological perspective.

Data for any CDA is subjected to critical analysis looking beyond the words used to see how the text reflects power dynamics of the society. The researcher, using the utterances looks at the context that produces the text. The context includes the historical dimension and the cultural practices that are typically associated with that form of social action.

The enactment of power in discourse is considered very important as it has implications for the participants and the interpretation of discourse. CDA recognizes that those who are privileged to have access to social power through their wealth, status, knowledge, age, gender often abuse it in discourse when they interact with people without such power. This has been shown in gender, political, racist, legal and medical discourse. The very purpose of CDA is to establish this fact in discourse.

. Chapter Six

Cohesive Devices

Cohesive devices play very important role in the interpretation of discourse. These devices, according to Halliday and Hasan can be classified under five main categories. They are as follows: Reference, Substitution, Ellipsis, Conjunction and Lexical Cohesion.

Reference

Reference is a term used to refer to certain items which are not interpreted semantically in their own right but rather ‘make reference to something else for their interpretation’. Reference is actually a cohesive device that allows the reader or hearer to trace participants, events and entities in texts. In English , according to Halliday and Hasan, there are certain items that occur in the Nominal Group and have the property of reference. The structure of the nominal group is one of modification; it consists of the Head, known as ‘premodifiers’ ,and some which follow it, known as ‘postmodifiers’, as explained in the flowing examples :

The two high stone walls along the roadside…

The Head of the nominal group, in the above example, is the word ‘walls’; within the modifier, ‘the’ has the function of deictic, ‘two’ numerative, ‘high’ epithet, and ‘stone’ classifier , while ‘along the roadside’ is said to be a qualifier. Halliday and Hasan believe that there are certain items in all languages that have the property of reference. In the English language, for example , these tiems are : personal , demonstrative, and comparative. These are presented as follows:

a. Three bags of apples, three bags of apples, see how much heavy they are .

In the above sentence ‘they’ refers back to the noun phrase ‘three bags of apples’.

b. Thomas went to Colombo in july. He went there to meet his relatives.

In the above example ‘there’ refers back respectively to Thomas and Colombo.

c. This is the best example I have given.

In the above example ‘this’ demonstrative pronoun points forward to the whole description that follows.

d. For he is a good person. And so say all of us.

In the above sentence the pronoun ‘he’ refers to, the participants in the speech occasion are able to identify the referent by the context in which the speech situation occurs. This type of reference is technically called ‘exophoric’

The kinds of references which have be retrieved for full interpretation in this type of cohesion, is referred to as ‘ referential meaning’. In other words, the identity of the particular thing or class of things which is being referred to. When the source of the necessary information is an item in the text itself, one is dealing with what is called endophora or endophoric reference when the source of reference is outside the text, in the context of situation , one is dealing with ‘exophoric reference’.

Endophoric reference is divided into two types. They are anaphoric- when the information needed for the interpretation is in the preceding portion of the text. Second, cataphroic – when information needed for the interpretation is found in the part of the text that follows.

Personal Reference

These references are items can be sub-classified as personal pronouns, possessive pronouns and possessive determiners or possessive adjectives. These references are the means through which objects are referred to. These references are always associated with nouns such as

I - me- my – mine

We – us – our – ours

You – you – your – yours

They – them – their – themselves

He – him – himself – his

She – her – herself – her

It – it – itself – its

Demonstratives, unlike the personal reference items that refer to their referents by specifying their function in the speech situation, are those items that refer to their referents by specifying their location on a scale of proximity. This proximity may sometimes be metaphorical. Halliday and Hasan recognize two types of demonstratives. The adverbial demonstratives ‘here’ , ‘there’ , ‘now’, and ‘then’ , according to Halliday and Hasan, refer to the location of process in space of time. They normally do so directly regardless of the location of person or object that is participating in the process. Adverbial demonstratives usually function as adjuncts in the clause. They never act as elements within the nominal group. They have a secondary function as

qualifier. The selective nominal demonstratives ‘this, ‘these’ , that’ and ‘those’ along with the definite article ‘the’ , on the other hand, refer to location of a person or an object anticipating in the process. They occur as elements within the nominal group. The demonstratives function in the nominal group either as head or modifier with the exception of the definite article which is always a modifier and never a head.

Substitution

Unlike reference, substation is a relation between linguistic items such as words or phrases. Reference is a semantic phenomenon; substitution, including ellipsis, is grammatical. Halliday and Hasan (1976:90) believe that ‘since substitution is a grammatical relation the substitute may function as a noun, as a verb, or as a clause’. Hence they distinguish three types of substitution: nominal, verbal and clausal.

The following are the examples which illustrate the use of substation

a. This bag is an old one. I need to get a new. (Nominal substitution )

b. Did you know him? Yes, every does. (verbal substation )

c. Is it going to be tough? I hope so.( clausal substation)

Ellipsis

The term ‘ellipsis’ means ‘an omission.’ It is an omission of a grammatical item from a construction when the meaning is very clear event without them. The grammatical terms include auxiliaries ; both primary and secondary and modal verbs. The notion of ‘ellipsis’ is defined by Halliday and Hasan goes as Ellipsis is ;

Something ‘left unsaid’. There is not implication here that what is unsaid is not understood; on the contrary , ‘unsaid’ implies ‘but understood nervertheless’ and another way of referring to ellipsis is in fact as something understood, where understood is used in special sense of ‘going without saying’ (Halliday and Hasan: 142)

It is argued that since language does not function in isolation. In other words, it functions, as text in actual situation of use, there are always some sources available for the hearer or reader to interpret a sentence that is contained in the sentence itself. These sources , which are needed to

supplement ‘what is left unsaid’ , are two different kinds; only one of these is associated with ellipsis.

Take a look at the following example to understand the role of ellipsis.

Scarcely anyone lived in this place before revolution .

In the above example we have information stated and also information left unsaid. For example, to interpret, we should probably want to know whether ‘place’ means ‘ town’ or ‘village’ or ‘city’; and whether ‘anyone’ refers to a particular group or general term; and whether ‘revolution’ refers to ‘any upheaval’

These gaps between word are well-understood thanks to the context that the sentence as a whole supplies. In other words in a sentence, each word is related to another in perfect semantic and syntactic harmony. It is this harmony that exists gives the reader the missing links which supply information to establish comprehensibility.

Nominal Ellipsis

They are those which operate on the nominal group. the structure of the nominal group consist of a head with optional modifier. The modifying elements include some which precede the head, known as ‘premodifiers’ and some which follow it, known as ‘postmodifiers’. The former includes deictic, numerative, epithet, or a classifer, whereas the latter includes only a qualifier as in:

These two fast electronic machines with slides

The Head of the nominal group is the noun ‘machines’. Within the modifier ‘these’ has the function of deictic, ‘two’ numerative, ‘fast’ epithet and ‘electronic’ classifer’ while ‘with slides’ is a qualifier.

Verbal ellipsis

Verbal ellipsis as the name implies operates on the verbal group. The structure of the verbal group usually expresses its systemic features such as the choices that are being within the verbal group system such as:

Finiteness: finite or non-finite

If finite: indicative or imperative

If non-finite: modal or non-modal

Polarity: positive or negative

Voice: active or passive

Tense: past or present or future

According to Halliday and Hasan an elliptical verbal group is one whose structure does not fully express its systemic features; they have to be recovered by presupposition as in:

What have you been doing? Teaching

In the above elliptical verbal group ‘teaching’, there is only one lexical element, and that is the verb itself ‘teach’. The presupposition ‘have been teaching’ expresses all the features of the verbal group that is presupposed by the elliptical verbal group; finite, indicative, non-modal, positive, active and ‘present in past in present’.

Clausal Ellipsis

It is a very complicated relation; there is no clear-cut distinction between verbal ellipsis and clausal ellipsis. The former involves the omission of other elements in the structure of the clause besides verbal ones. Within this context, Halliday and Hasan (1976:194) write as follows:

Verbal ellipsis is always accompanied by the omission of the related clause elements, these that are in the same part of the clause as the relevant portion of the verbal group. so, in operator ellipsis, where there is omission of the finite part of the verbal group, the subject is also omitted ; in lexical ellipsis, where there is omission of the non-finite part of the verbal group, all complements and adjuncts are also omitted.

Example:

The cat won’t catch mice in winter.

a. Or ------chase birdsb. B. won’t it-----?

In (a) which is an instance of operator ellipsis , the subject ‘cat’ is omitted along with the operator ‘won’t, whereas in (b) , which is an instance of lexical ellipsis , the complement ‘mice’ and the adjunct ‘in winter’ are omitted along with the lexical verb ‘catch’.

Conjunction

The main cohesive category is ‘conjunction’. It involves the use of formal markers to relate sentences, clauses and paragraphs to each other. Conjunction signals the way the writer wants the reader to relate what is about to be said to what has been said before.

This kind of cohesive relation is different in nature from the other cohesive relations such as reference, substitution and ellipsis. In this context, Halliday and Hasan !1976:226) observe as follows:

Conjunctive elements are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly, by virtue of their specific meanings; they are not primary devices for reaching out into the preceding text, but they express certain meanings which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse. There have been countless attempts to classify conjunctions in English. But all of them faced the same difficulty. Each classification highlights only different aspects of the facts. This is due to the broadness of the conjuction relations. Halliday and Hasan in their model, have based their classification of the conjunctions in terms of their cohesive relations in discourse, which they claim are capable of handling all the possible sub-categories. In Halliday and Hasan’s classification , conjunctions are specifically classified as follows:

1. Additive : ‘and’ , ‘or’ , and ‘nor’2. Adversative : ‘ but’ , ‘still’ , ‘yet’, ‘however’ 3. Causal : ‘so’, ‘thus’ , ‘therefore’ , ‘consequently’ , ‘as a result of’ 4. Temporal: ‘then’, ‘and then’ , ‘next’ , ‘afterwards’, ‘after that’.

Chapter Seven

Pragmatics

In world that we live in one of the greatest challenges faced by linguists is related to how language is and can be used in ever changing social contexts. For many years, linguistics and other social subjects had grown in isolation. The reciprocal indifference between them has come to end thanks to some major breakthrough in the field of Pragmatics. Firstly, we shall try to understand how Pragmatics as a subject developed and later on we will move on to a discussion on basic principles of it.

Pragmatics as a discipline emerged way back in 1970. It looks primarily at the aspects of meaning and how it is connected to the speaker and the addressee. It focuses on the context of the utterance, and generally observed principles language users obey to be able to cooperate in any speech situation. The major focus of Pragmatics is to examine how language functions in the social situations in which it is used.

It is initially started as a subfield of linguistics. The major proponents were philosophers , who the position that when we make utterances, such utterances are used to perform certain acts. They also believe that since our utterances are situated in a particular context, such context affect what we produce. We can only produce utterances that obey the principles that guide speech behavior in the context of our speech. There are principles that guide our cooperation with other users of language when we use language. Such principles help us to produce relevant utterances to the situations. This dynamic of understanding is crucial to the field of discourse analysis.

Pragmatics distinguishes two intents or meanings in each utterances or communicative act of verbal communication. One is the informative intent or the sentence meaning , and the other the communicative intent or speaker meaning. (Leech, 1983; Sperber and Wilson, 1986). Speakers of any language possess what is called pragmatic competence which includes knowledge of the social status of the speakers, knowledge of the culture, such as politeness , knowledge of how one can infer from an utterance the intended meaning of the speaker as opposed to the surface form produced. In short , it is the study of how contextual forces interact with linguistic meaning in the interaction of utterances.

Charles Morris (1938) was the first to define Pragmatics as a study of the relation between signs and their interpreters. But later the philosopher Paul Grice’s William James lectures at Harvard in 1967 led to the real development of the field. Grice introduced the notion of implicature. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , an implicature is something meant, implied,

or suggested distinct from what is said. Implicature can be part of sentence meaning or dependent on conversational context, and can be conventional or unconventional . conversational implicatures have become one of the principal subjects of pragmatics.

Pragmatics as a discipline has been founded on the pillars of some of the basic principles. These are central to Pragmatics that they represent the foundations for the study of Pragmatics. They are the basic issues that underlie the study of Pragmatics include utterance, context, entailment, implicature, deixis and presupposition.

An utterance is a unit of speech generally but not always bounded by breaths and pauses. It may also be described as a complete unit of talk, sometimes bounded by the speaker’s silence. Every utterance is made within some specific context. By context, we do not just refer to the physical context, but to everything that surrounds the making of the utterance. These include what is going on in the place where the utterance is made , the knowledge of the speaker and the addressee of the culture in which they are operating (cultural context), knowledge of the expectations and discursive practices of the people among whom the utterance is being made, especially as it relates to the social roles and relationships (social context). Context also includes the knowledge of the world of the speaker (epistemic context) and the utterances that precede and follows the one under consideration (linguistic context). According to Taiwo (2007:2) studying the cario-vascular system as a complete separate entity from any other part of human or animal anatomy. Language creates contexts and contexts create the possibilities for interpretation and remove multiple ambiguities that utterances would have had if they had occurred in isolation.

Entailment is otherwise called logical implication. They are actually deductions and inferences we have about particular utterances that make us to interpret them appropriately. For instance, two sentences are related in the sense that the truth of one requires the truth of the other. For example:

He killed a snake.

entails that:

The snake is dead

In the above example, if the sentence one is false, then the sentence two will also be necessarily false and vice versa. So the addressee will know that the fact that somebody was assassinated means that the person is dead.

Implicature

It is something meant, implied, or suggested as distinct from what is said. Implicatures can be part of sentence meaning or dependent on conversational context. The term ‘implicature’ was coined by Paul Grice , one of the earliest scholars of Pragmatics. An implicature is anything that

is inferred from an utterance, but is not necessarily a condition for the truth of the utterance. This is where implicature differs from entailment. For an entailment, what is inferred must be a condition for the truth of what is uttered. But in implicature, the truth of a statement only suggests that of the other and does not necessarily require it.

Deixis

This simply means the use of reference items in utterances. Such reference items depend greatly on the context of the utterance. Words that are considered deictic include I, you, now, here, that, there,etc., There are different kinds of deixis.

Presupposition

This refers to background belief in relating to an utterance. A presupposition must be mutually known or assumed by the speaker and the addressee for the utterance to be considered appropriate in the context in which it is uttered. A presupposition is generally based on implicit assumptions, which are arrived at through the process of inference. Presupposition is a common daily occurrence in language use. It is the mechanism used implicitly to make assumption in day-to-day language.

To conclude, utterances are made by language users with a lot of assumptions, yet communication goes on smoothly, because there are some naturally designed means by which utterances are understood. Through these means , people can understand even what is not said by using contextual cues, relying on their shared knowledge with the speaker and their general world view. Pragmatics has made us to understand how we arrive at meaning of utterances by relying on the context of such utterances.

Chapter Eight

Speech Acts

Speech Acts refer to different situations wherein communication process initiated. Every speech act requires a different style. Speech Act Theory is one of the earliest theories proposed in Pragmatics. J.L.Austin in his oft-quoted book How to do Things with Words observes that whenever we make any utterance, we are performing an act. Such acts may include requesting, questioning, commanding, and so forth. Those acts are called Speech Acts.

Every sentence we make is designed to perform certain function. Such functions include : giving information, warning, ordering somebody or a group of people to do something, questioning somebody about a fact, thanking somebody for gift or an act of kindness, and so forth. When we utter statements, we expect our listeners to recognize and understand the functions such as statements are meant to perform. For example, when we ask a question , we expect our listener to realize that we are requesting for information. If they failed to appreciate our intention, then we can say they have ‘misunderstood’ us. This is what is termed as speech act. The theory of speech act therefore states that whenever we utter a statement, we are attempting to accomplish something with words. (Austin 1962 and Searle, 1969)

There are different kinds of utterances. Each utterance has a form and a function. Based on the form of the utterances we classify them under categories such as statements or affirmatives, interrogatives and imperatives.

In the opinion of Austin there are nearly three kinds of acts which are performed when a language is used. He has made a convincing distinction between locutionary act, illocutionary acts and perlocutionary acts. Locutionary acts are considered as acts of speaking –acts involed in the construction of speech. They include using particular words in conformity with the particular rules of a language and with certain senses and references as determined by the rules of the language from which they are drawn. (Sadock, 2006: 54)

Illocutionary acts are the consequences or the by-product of speaking. They produce some effect upon the thoughts , feelings and actions of the addressee and the speaker. Felicity conditions are to be fulfilled before an utterance is said to be successful. They are the conditions that have to be met before one can say that a speaker has made a sincere statement.

A direct speech act is one whose proposition is clearly represented in the utterance and understood by the addressee. For example, the following sentence , ‘ Please do this for me’, is a direct speech act because that it is clearly seen as a request. But, some speech acts are not direct

in their proposition; ye the addressee will still through inference and implicature understand that intention of the speaker. For example:

Today is very hot.

Form the above sentence the addressee may infer that today being hot is uncomfortable. So the addressee will recognize the utterance as an indirect speech act that is making a request of him to excuse him for not coming out. Even though the utterance is a statement , its function is different .

Hence, each time we make utterance we are using them to perform certain acts. Such acts may be directly stated by the speaker or indirectly stated. Certain verbs are used to explicitly signal that an utterance is meant to perform an act. They are referred to as performative verbs, while the utterances in which they occur are called performative utterance.

Chapter Nine

Cooperative Principles

Conversation is both an art and skill. It requires enough understanding of the place where the speaker and the listener are placed, contextual forces in existence, the need and purpose of exchange and the end of conversation. The participants of any conversation are expected to be aware of certain principles implied in order to make any conversation exchange a success. When we are engaged in any conversation , there is a basic underlying assumption we make in the sense that we try to cooperate with one another to construct meaningful conversation. This assumption is called ‘Cooperative Principles”. These principles are outlined by a noted linguist name by H.P. Grice. Hence these are called Grice Maxims or conversation principles or politenss maxims.

Speakers engaged in conversation try to contribute meaningful, productive utterance to further whatever conversation they are involved in. listeners also assume that there conversational partners are doing the same. The summary of cooperative principle according to Grice is as follows:

Make your conversational contribution such as is required , at the stage at which it occurs , by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. (1975).

Speech errors are often ignored in conversation as long as the meaning the speaker is trying to get across is clear. Similarly, we often find that meaning in some statements on the surface seem ridiculous and unrelated. Instances of such use may be found in the genres such as sarcasm, metaphors, hyperbolic statements and so forth, because we assume that speakers who use them are trying to get across some meaning. This is what the whole idea of cooperative principle is all about.

Grice introduced four general maxims that speakers and listeners obey in conversation. The maxims are like a rule of thumb. They are not hard and fast rules, but speakers try to observe them in most conversations. The observance of cooperative principle allows for the possibility of implicatures. Implicatures as treated earlier are meanings that are not explicitly conveyed in what is said, but they can still be arrived at through inference.

The four important maxims of Grice Principles are as follows:

1. Principle of Quality2. Principle of Quantity

3. Principle of Manner4. Principle of Relation

Maxims of Quality

Do not say what believe to be false Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

People who always provide false and unsubstantiated information in conversation are not usually liked. They is why lying is not an acceptable speech behavior in any human culture. In any normal conversation, people try to provide truthful information to maintain their integrity. Once a person is known to be liar by people around him, people will not always believe his utterances.

Maxims of Quantity

Make your contributions as informative as required Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

This is what language users do in conversations when they make sure that they go straight to the point by providing only the necessary information. People who provide too much detail than necessary in conversation will end up discouraging other speakers because they would have taken too much time saying what they would have said in a short period. Most people will frown at such things in conversation. This shows that we are always conscious of this maxim.

Maxims of Manner

Avoid obscurity of expression Avoid ambiguity Be brief Be orderly

The maxim of manner is one of the ways people collaborate to build an intelligible conversation. Utterances must not be obscure. In other words, as much as possible, the meaning should not be hidden to the extent that the addressee would not be able to decode it. Similarly, ambiguous statements are always avoided. It could be frustrating listening to people whose utterances are full of ambiguous expressions.

It is also important for our utterances to be brief and orderly. Brevity is one of the skills we try to acquire whenever we converse with others. We will not always have all the time to say all that

we need to say. Since, we know we have limited time to speak at any time, we organize our speech in such an orderly manner that we are still able to capture everything we need to say within the limited period which is available to us.

Maxim of Relevance

Be relevant

Every utterance in any conversation is meaningful only in relation to other utterances made earlier before it. Those who make statements that are not relevant to the conversation are either seen as not following the conversation well enough to make meaningful contributions or they are in extreme cases, seen as people who need to have their head examined. It is generally believed in most human cultures that it is better to keep quiet and follow a conversation than to make irrelevant utterances.

To conclude, whenever people are engaged in a conversation, they are involved in a cooperative venture. They have a sense of how long they should talk and the kind of things they should say that will make their speech meaningful to their addressee. They also know what is meaning to say in any context and how they should say it. They are the things Grice summarized under his cooperative principles. Cooperating in conversation is done naturally as part of an average speaker’s competence.

Chapter Ten

Politeness in Conversation

One of the most important factors which contribute to effective conversation is politeness. Conversation has to be within the bounds of decency and decorum. Practitioners of any language make conscious attempts at developing skills in politeness. In our daily interactions, we have multiple ways of speaking to and addressing people that shows that we have some form of respect them. There are ways we speak to our friends and there are ways we speak to people we are not familiar with. we are more polite normally in our use of language in formal situation than informal settings.

We need to understand the concept of politeness in our conversation before we move on the other aspects of discussion. The idea of politeness in the study of Pragmatics is closely tied to the concept of face. Some scholar have identified some politeness strategies and maxims generally used by speakers. We shall be examining them and other issues with politeness connected with politeness in conversation and writing.

Politeness is actually defined as a kind of disposition we have towards other people that makes us more civilized and refined in our conversation. When we speak with others, we try to be polite in the kinds of things we say to them by carefully choosing our words. We are tactful and nice in what we say, even when we do not sometimes mean it. We choose our words to fit the different occasions we experience everyday. Even when we say things that are not too polite, especially when they are not said deliberately, we try to apologize. We are quick to recognize it when people are not polite in their speech because we have a sense of what it means to be polite when we address other people.

We are found to be more polite with people we are meeting for the first time than we are with people we are familiar with. We are also more polite in formal situations than in informal ones. We are more polite when we speak with people older than us than we are with people who are of the same age, position and the status. It is important to note that what constitutes politeness differs from one culture to another.

The most relevant concept in politeness is face. Face refers to the respect an individual has for himself or herself. According to Brown and Levinson (1986), speakers develop politeness strategies to maintain their self- esteem. One’ face is one’s public self-image. Every person has an emotional sense of self that they want every other person to recognize. So when are polite, we have shown awareness of another person’s face.

When we say things that make people feel embarrassed or uncomfortable, or something that threatens another person’s self image, we are said to have employed a face threatening act(FTA).

Politeness strategies are developed to deal with FTAs. For example, if one uses a direct imperative to demand something from somebody, the impression you are creating is that you are better placed socially than the other. It is alright to use direct imperative for people who have lower social power than to use the same for people one is not socially superior to. To do the latter is to use a FTA. On the other hand, when you say something that lessens possible threat to another person’s face, you are said to be performing a face-saving act.

Everybody has what Brown and Levinson call a negative face and a positive face. A negative face is the tendency in a person to be independent and have freedom from imposition. When a speaker says ‘ I am sorry to trouble you’ to someone he is trying to make an enquiry from , then he has used a face- saving act that emphases the addressee’s negative face. A face-saving act that emphasizes the addressee’s positive face draws attention to a common goal.

In the opinion of Brown and Levinson (1987) there are four major types of politeness strategies. They are as follows:

Bald on record Negative politeness Positive politeness Off-the-record or indirect strategy

Bald on record

Bald on record strategies are those which do not attempt to minimize the threat to the hearer’s face. It is commonly used by speakers who know their addresses very closely. With the bald on record strategies there is a direct possibility that the audience will be shocked or embarrassed by the strategy. For example, a bald on record strategy might be to tell your friend to do the cleaning up, by saying ‘this is your day’.

Positive politeness

This will attempt to minimize the threat to the hearers face. This strategy is most commonly used in situations where the interlocutors know each other fairly well. In many instances attempts are made to avoid conflicts. For example, a positive politeness strategy might be the request such as ‘ I understand that you are very busy now…. Still would you mind sparing a few minutes for me?

Negative politeness

It presumes that the speaker will be imposing on the listener. It is the desire to remain autonomous. For instance, a speaker may request this way “ I know that you have spent all your money on house construction, but please… can you still lend me a little money for emergency? The address is likely to accede to the request if he has the means because the request shows a respect for their ability to maintain autonomy.

The final politeness strategy outlined by Brown and Levinson is indirect strategy. Here the language is indirect, but the intention is usually clear from the context. For example, a request can be made this way “ Is there any restaurant at the corner ?’ . This request indirectly implies that the speaker is very hungry and would want to go and eat. But this request is not put so directly.

Politeness Principles.

Politeness principles are a set of maxims proposed by Geoffrey Leech. He observes that participants in any social interaction normally try to interact in an atmosphere of relative harmony. The following is a list of maxims.

Tact Maxim

According to this maxim the participants are expected to minimize the cost and maximize the benefits to others. The first part of this maxim aligns with Brown and Levinson’s strategies of minimizing imposition while the second part reflects the positive politeness strategy attending to the hearer’s interests, wants and needs. For example : “would you please spend a couple of minutes for me?’

Generosity Maxim

Minimize benefit to self and maximize cost to self. This maxim makes it clear that to really express politeness in conversation , the speaker should put other first before him. For example : “Please don’t worry; it is always my pleasure to serve you”

Approbation Maxim

Minimize dispraise of other; maximize the expression of beliefs which express approval of others. This maxim implies that we should make other feel good by giving them complements and we should not praise ourselves, but rather allow others to do so. This also implies that we should as much as possible avoid disagreement with others. For example : I know you are good at cooking; would you please let know how to make this stuff?

Modesty Maxim

Minimize praise of self; maximize the praise of others. We should find opportunities to praise others, we dispraise self. For example: ‘ I am very immature on that. Can you believe that I was wrong on that count?

Agreement Maxim

Minimize disagreement between self and other; maximize agreement between self and other. This is in line with Brown and Levinson’s positive politeness strategy. In expressing politeness

in conversation, we should avoid disagreement with other people. For example: “I thought we agreed that you would have to call before setting out to see me.”

Sympathy Maxim

Minimize antipathy between self and other; maximize sympathy between self and other. One way of expressing politeness is to identify with people by congratulating them, commiserating with them or expressing condolences when they are bereaved. This, according to Brown and Levinson shows that we are interested in the welfare of other people.

To sum up, politeness is one phenomenon we observe in our daily interactions. Pragmatists have identified the strategies we use when being polite and the maxims we observe in the process of our communication. The maxims of politeness , though universal in appeal, are followed in varying degrees depending upon cultural and social contexts.

Chapter Eleven

Discourse in Use

Discourse is often described as a social phenomenon. Hence, the meaning of any form of discourse can only be traced back to the society in which it evolves. Discourse is always used to engage in conflict and it also used to resolve conflict. Discourse and culture are very close in terms of their relationship. As we know, discourse is used to express culture in so many different ways. It is always the case that a group of language speakers constitute a discourse community and their discourse reflects their agreed way of life. This is why discourse varies for instance with the context in which it is practiced. This is to imply that there many kinds of discourse which emerge due to many factors connected to cultural reasons.

A study of discourse is sometime is not complete without examining how gender affects discourse and how discourse is used to portray gender. Scholars on Feminist Discourse and Gender Studies have identified different ways through which gender shapes discourse.

Discourse and Gender

One way of looking at gender in discourse is to look at the speech of men and women. Women and men do not speak the same way in the sense that what they talk about it different. For instance, women of the talk about feelings and relationships , their work and their family. On the other hand, men talk most often about practical matters like their latest computer update, how to repair their car or even business matters.

Another way is to look at how women are represented. The general feeling of scholars on Media and Gender Studies is that women are stereotyped in discourse especially in the media. Very often they are presented as sex symbols with the display of sensitive parts of their body . Representation of women across all media tend to highlight the following : beauty, sexuality, emotion and relationship. Women are often represented as being part of a context and working as part of a tem. In drama, they tend to take the role of helper or object, passive rather than active. Often their passivity extends to victimhood.

Men on the other hand are represented with focus on the following aspects of masculinity: sex. power, physique and independence. With these stereotyping , feminists scholar believe that women are most times misrepresented and this amounts to discrimination against the female gender. Men are provided with a larger number of opportunities to present their viewpoints and shown in diverse role in all areas like administration, law, business, science and technology. Representation of women varies from negligible to total exclusions and women in certain accepted professions are interviewed and talked about in the press.

Discourse and Racism

Racism is an expression of any form of prejudice, denial or discrimination against a person or a group of people on the basis of the color of their skin, language , customs, place of birth, or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of the person. It is also seen as a belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Racism is often expressed by discriminatory or abusive behavior and practices towards the members of the supposed inferior races or denial of certain rights to them on the basis that they are inherently inferior to another or other races.

Though racism is often expressed through actions, such as violence, oppression and denial of rights , it has been expressed through discourse also. CDA have labeled any discourse that has discriminatory tendencies toward people of other races as ‘racist discourse’. This discourse is not only practiced by individual, it is practiced by institutions, governments, corporations and educational institutions.

Discourse and Conflict

The relationship between discourse and conflict is considered to be very important mainly because conflicts are better managed when discourse is tactically used by those involved in it and the mediators. On the other hand, conflicts get out of hand when tact is not employed in the use of discourse for resolution. A major focus of CDA is the enactment of power in discourse. Since words are said to be very powerful, they could be used to change behavior and societal orientation towards issues.

Conflicts arise from time to time among individuals and groups of people. For example, ethinic conflicts are quite rampant all over world. Conflicts arise in the face of perceived opposition of needs, values and interest. The idea of conflict ranges from minor disagreement over issues to conflicts that involve the use of force, termed ‘armed conflict’. Though scholars in the area of conflict studies have identified some possible ways of handling conflicts, such as collaboration, compromise and accommodation, none of these can be done without the use of discourse. Engaging in dialogue and negotiation around conflict is a major way of resolving conflicts.

Chapter Twelve

The Scope of Discourse

Discourse Analysis, though widely recognized as a branch of Linguistics has its origin in the social sciences. It encompasses a wide range of activities. It is at the intersection of discipline as diverse as Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics, Philosophical Linguistics and Computational Linguistics. This chapter will brief the reader about the interconnection and interplay between Discourse and several other fields.

Discourse and Philosophy

Discourse and philosophy are very much related to each other. Philosophy is a discipline that enquires about issues such as life, knowledge and beliefs. Discourse, too as a discipline, touch upon these many different aspects in a new dimension. Hence each cannot be separated from the other. Linguistic philosophers have seen the connection between our words and our acts in the speech acts theory. Whenever we utter a statement, we are performing an act. Philosophers working on the field of language use try to explain how language and thought process are connected and how we cooperative with one another in ensuring that our discourse is successful.

Our knowledge of culture, norms and beliefs, especially as they relate to our language is explained by philosophers. We usually take these things for granted when we use language. In other words, in many a times we have to arrive at meaning by entailment and inference.

Discourse and Sociology

Discourse has a great deal in common with sociology. Sociology is the study of human behavior and how people interact with one another in a given context. The society helps to shape human behavior. Sociologists study every aspect of human behavior in the society, including linguistics behavior. However, their goal is to able to describe the role the society plays in the observed behavioral patterns. Linguists however study human language and explain how the society shapes the language. The field of sociolinguistics is a hybrid discipline that brings together the method of linguists and sociologists. The focus is to study how language is used in the society for social interaction. (Hudson, 1980:1). Hence, it is appropriate to conclude that Discourse Analysis as a discipline originates from sociolinguistics, whose major focus is on the relations between society and language.

The whole idea of discourse is a societal phenomenon. Discourse is a social practice , therefore methods of investigating it is closely related to those of investigating sociology. The approach is such that the investigator takes the context as a very important factor therefore the researcher must be present in the file do observation and data collection. This field study method is common to both disciplines.

Discourse and Medicine

The use of language in medical practice is one area that discourse analysts have investigated extensively. Medical interactions as they take place between doctors and patients during consultation period, interaction with pregnant women during the antenatal and postnatal clinics, and medical classroom interactions have been studied by various scholars. (Coulthard and Ashby, 1976). Since medical practice involves a lot of interaction between the practitioners, who are the experts and the non-practitioners, the non-experts, such interactions have relevance for discourse analysts. Discursive practices, such as turn taking , turn allocation, elicitation techniques in clinical interviews have revealed a lot about the nature of medical discourse when compared with the other forms of discourse.

Discourse and Literature

Discourse and Literature are allied disciplines in the sense that language is the vehicle for literature and every literary work is seen as a form of discourse. Stylistics is an area of language study where literature and language meet. Any of the genre of literature is seen as a form of discourse, which can be analyzed using discourse analytic approach.

Critical linguistics, introduced by Roger Fowler, is a critical , linguistically-oriented examination of literary texts. It was concerned with reading the meanings in the texts as the realization of social processes, seeing texts as functioning ideologically and politically in relation to their contexts.

Discourse and Translation

Interpretation is a challenging task in translation. Every text is made of a sequence of rhetorical purposes. These purposes are related to the text content. A text has only one predominant rhetorical purpose, but other subsidiary functions have their own importance. The translator should not disregard some important secondary purposes of the text because the text official function can be manipulated. A text can also reflect ideology. The implications of expressions of ideology for translation are significant. The ideology implications can be in the area of genre, social relations or other instruments of power. Translators have to be aware of the social context in which the text is embedded to keep the ideological force of its words. Discourse in translation has always laid its focus on this challenging aspect of translation.

Discourse and politics

Politics is strongly associated with language. Politics has been a fountain power for generation. It reserves all sorts of power through exercising influence upon people. For this purpose, politics uses language effectively. The people involved in politics in various ways use language effectively to exploit the situation to get to the power. According to Schaffner(1996) , “any

political action is prepared, accompanied, controlled and influenced by language “ (210). Aspects of political communication include , but need not be limited to, statements made by politicians , writings of politicians, political speeches, election campaigns, parliamentary debates and political interviews.

Once aspect of the political language use that scholars have studied is something related to the use of deixis in political speeches. Diexis are references items used in speech and writing. How politicians refer to themselves and other in their speeches is very important. It goes a long way to show how they enact power in discourse. In politics words are very powerful for politics is concerned with power. The power is used to control people’s behavior , influence their thoughts and determine their values.

The scholars ,who are working in this field of Discourse Analysis, study how politician produce, and maintain social power in discursive practices. How effectively a politician can persuade the electorate , to large extent, determines how successful he will be controlling or keeping power. Politicians explore the creativity nature of language by making use of metaphors, and specific lexis that will drive home their points and serve their purpose.

Discourse and Education

Apart from language being the tool for instruction in schools, different languages are also studied as school subjects at various levels of education. Language plays a very important role education. the use of the appropriate language at different levels of education will determine the success of learning. For example, the mother tongue has been recognized as the most appropriate medium of instruction in the early childhood education. The argument is that concepts are better formed in the mother tongue than in a foreign or second language.

English has been a dominant language in classroom discourse. Classroom discourse has been studied by scholars such as Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). It is well structured in such a way that the scholars proposed a rank scale that can be used to describe what is happening in classroom discourse. Teachers and students obey some basic rules of interaction in their discourse. For example , in a typical classroom exchange there is an initiation by the teacher, a response from the students and a follow-up by the teacher. There are also different classes of act used by the teacher and pupils in the course of classroom discourse.

Discourse and Law

According to David Millinkoff ‘The Law is the profession of words’. This statement sums up the role of language in the field of law. There is a close connection between law and language which can never be ignored. The written constitutions of the world, the law of contract which regulates

contractual relation between parties, trade laws, industrial disputes acts, international laws , environmental laws and other related areas are all outlined in the language.

In the legal process of examination and cross examination language plays a pivotal role. Investigation into the field of legal language is quite extensive as it touches upon several branches of social sciences. The application of linguistic methods to legal questions is another area of importance in discourse. The provisions of law are often interpreted based on the existing circumstances which influence the practitioners of law.

Thanks to the increased complexities involved in interpretation of law by using language, of late significant attempts have been made in the direction of establishing Forensic Linguistics as a full-fledged discipline. This branch of linguistics, as the name implies, tries to bring out the connection, inter-connection and inter-face existing between law and language. This study relates to application of linguistics to legal issues. In other words, in this discourse, application of linguistic knowledge to a particular social setting has been made. In the discourse on law obviously for understandable reasons one may find interface between language, crime and law, where law includes law enforcement, judicial matters, legislation, disputes or proceedings in law, and even disputes which only potentially involve some infraction of the law or some necessity to seek a legal remedy.

Chapter Thirteen

Practical Discourse

In this chapter an attempt has been made to explain to the reader how to approach a discourse from linguistic perspective. There are different approaches to discourse, as we disused earlier, which vary from context to context. The approach is often determined by the purpose, scope, content and contexts which put constraints on the scholars. While analyzing a discourse a scholar may approach the written piece or spoken part from the angle of semantics or from the perspective language. These two approaches stand poles apart for the reason that semantic approach is an extension of peripheral linguistic approach.

As rightly stated by Zelling Harish in his Introduction to Discourse Analysis that discourse analysis is actually an attempt at looking beyond the boundaries of language. Here language includes words, phrases, clauses and sentences required to make a discourse. But, it is to be noted that ‘to look beyond’ the constructs of a language, we need to have first initial understanding of how ‘language is at work’ or ‘how it is used’ to serve the purpose. This is to remind the reader that ‘to look beyond’ a language is an attempt at looking at ‘meaning making process’ where as ‘to look at’ how the discourse is constructed is an attempt at analyzing linguistic units of discourse.

In this chapter, thus, a focused approach is given to the language aspect of discourse. This will help the reader to appreciate how the linguistics devices are used, how words are combined to form sentences, how ideas are organized, how different units of expression are linked to make a complete the discourse a complete whole and comprehensive. It is recommended to start the practical discourse by familiarizing ourselves with the various markers normally used in discourse. But, it is a challenging task to present a complete list of discourse makers and various functions of them. Ther are many of them, and perhaps even more importantly , some of them are used more in speech than in writing, or vice versa or some of them are more informally used than formally and so on and so on.

The best method to understand an effective use of discourse makers is to have a wide reading extensively through which the scholars can begin to develop both a conscious and unconscious

knowledge of how the author has employed several discourse markers. Discourse markers, which are technically called ‘communication signals’ should be handled very effectively with due caution and diligence. It is necessary to have an academic understanding of discourse makers and fhow they are actually used to serve the purpose of the author. In interpreting discourse, these marker provide us with a deep insight, and without which, our reader will tend to be flawed.

Every writer invents or uses some stock discourse markers on his need or circumstantial conditions. For the purpose of easy understanding, we have listed here different kinds of discourse markers. They fall under categories such as discourse functions, grammatical definitions and practical application to show how they are applied in a given context. These markers are used based on the writer’s preferences and choices.

The following is a list of selective discourse markers often employed by different writers.

a. With regard to / regarding/ as regards/ as for as/ …… is concerned.

These expressions are used to demand attention to what follows in a sentence. This is done by announcing the subject in advance.

Example:

As for as I am concerned he is right.

With regard to this issue, I have no knowledge.

b. On the other hand/ while/ whereas

These expressions are normally used to bring out a contrast between two ideas which contradict each other.

Example

I love cricket while I play football during my leisure.

He is working very hard on the other hard he is a spendthrift.

c. However/ nonetheless/nevertheless

These expressions are used to present two contrasting ideas.

Example

However hard he tried, he was not successful.

It is alright nonetheless we should be careful .

d. Moreover/ furthermore/ in addition to

These expressions are used to add information to what has been previously said. This usage gives a construction certain degree of elegance.

Example:

I have already spoken about it moreover I have also shown him how to do it.

In addition to what has been stated, please include this also.

e. Therefore/ as a result / consequently

These expressions are used to draw an inference or conclusion based on certain facts given.

Example:

He has done his best therefore he does not to feel guilty

As a result of heavy rain, the roads are inundated.

Discourse Markers

A well structured discourse has it form tight, ideas organized, purpose focused and conclusion explicit. When we observe different types of written or spoken discourses from academic point of view, we realize that there are some discourse markers between passages, paragraphs, sentences and words which keep occurring repeatedly. These markers would help the analyst to understand what has been stated before and what is to follow. Here is a list of those important discourse markers with examples.

Addition: moreover, additionally, besides , further, also, in addition to , similarly etc.,

Cause - Effect: as a result, hence, therefore, that is why, consequently , accordingly , for this reason, thus etc.,

Comparison: like, likewise, as well as, similarly etc.,

Contrast: but, still, yet, on the contrary, on the other hand, unfortunately, whereas, in opposition to , in contrast to

Time : after a while, after that, at last, currently , earlier, now, immediately , later, previously, sooner than later, frequently, seldom, rarely, again and again, in the meantime, subsequently, simultaneously et.,

Example: for example, to illustrate, to exemplify, for instance, in other words etc.,

Conclusion: to conclude, to sum up, finally, at last, at the end, to summarize, in short, to be precise, to wind up etc.,

Chapter Fourteen

Exercises in Discourse Analysis

In this chapter a few sample passages have been given in order to help the students to have practical training in the aspects of identifying discourse type, analyzing devices used in discourse, appreciating the different discourse theories applied.

1. Read the following conversation passage and say if the principles of conversation introduced by Grice followed.

Taxi driver: hello… um….by the way.. where do you want to go?

Passenger: hey….yes.., I would like to go airport…how long will you take to reach Airport from here?

Taxi driver: To the airport….. you mean…. the international one……

Passenger: No…… sorry.. .. the domestic one

Taxi driver: ok.. it is just ten minutes drive from here….

Passenger: thanks …… I will go now….

Questions:

a. What are the social roles of the participants?b. Which of the principles of Grice violated? Explainc. How will you rephrase the whole conversation so to meet the standards of

expectation?d. Explain the principle of quality and illustrate if it is applied or violated.e. Identify the discourse marker, if any, employed in the conversation.

2. Read the following passage and identify the cohesive devices used and list them out in different categories such as Grammatical / Lexical /Personal Connectors.

Examination is an integral part of our evaluation system. But, of late this has been found fault with for it fails to serve the purpose. This scheme of examination ‘tests’ only a few aspects of education such as ‘retention capacity’ or ‘facts learnt’ or ‘items memorized’. Apart from this, it does not help us actually evaluate the students’ grasp of subject matter and interpretative mind. Also, our examination system attempts to put the students into different categories so to compare one set with that of the other. But, in education process, there is something called ‘unique’ which implies that every child is unique and in this sense it has ‘something’ which not children posses. Hence, in this context, it is unwise to compare one with the other with an assumption that all those belong to same basket or class. Now, it is time, that we need to move always from this trend and come out with a standard of evaluation which does not put our students into categories and grade them by assigning ranks but, rather some yardstick which is reliable , reasonable and comprehensive.

3. Read the following passage and identify the missing cohesive links and fill in with appropriate connectors.

It was a rainy day _______ we went out into the street. ______ the weather was very pleasant ________ cloudy. The rain had swept away the dust and mud _________ I could find the traces of dirty objects over there. ______ I walked through the street I found the images of something horrible _________ jolted me out of my consciousness. It was my first experience of interacting with a force ________ was beyond my imagination. Slowly , I started getting the composure required __________ went closer to the object _______ to my utter shock it was just a lamp post.

4. Read the following conversation and analyze if the politeness maxims are followed or not. Briefly state your comments and list out the principles violated.

Service Executive: Why are you standing here, looking at me? Tell me.(How can I help you, please..?

Customer : I am here to make a complaint. (Thank you…. I am here to make a complaint. May I ,please?

Service Executive: Regarding …..?(Yea… please… you can…what is your problem?)

Customer : Look ! the Air conditioner which I bought last week from your company is not working well. It is frustrating really….. (I am sorry to report that the Air conditioner which I bought from you last week is not working well. It causes me problems….. I am sorry…)

Service Executive: Really….? Ok.. give me your contact details and I will ask my technician to attend to it.(Oh ! sorry to know about it. Don’t worry we will set it alright. Would you please give your details? I will be sending you a technician to get it right )

Customer : There are my details you asked for.,,, (Here it is…. Please)

Service Executive: Thanks ok….. you may go (Thank you for your cooperation. Bye)

Comment on the following aspects:

1. Why do you think this conversation defective?2. What are the principles violated here?3. Give some instances of violation of politeness maxims.4. What are the cultural norms ignored?5. What could be the possible reasons for this kind of defective conversation?

Chapter Fifteen

Conclusion

It has been a glorified challenge for the teachers and scholars alike to teach ‘Discourse Analysis’ as a subject. The challenge is mainly because of large areas of intersection that this field cuts across and wide exposure to different views required to take up such a great task of teaching. In the present century, going by the records of research available and various documented studies, one ,with reasonable insight, can presume that this field has enriched itself with substantive contributions from various scholars of different disciplines round the globe. More specifically, to quote an example , the field of discourse particularly in the areas of law and other related forensic studies has almost reached a pinnacle.

Though there are different methods, styles, strategies and approaches to teaching Discourse as a subject, the most suitable one is something which emerges from the compelling context that the teacher is faced with. The teachers and the scholar have to come to a common understanding before deciding on which method to rely upon. Be that it may, it is theoretically often quoted, though with reasonable conviction, that a study on discourse is an attempt at unfolding different layers of meanings. In other words, to quote from Zelling Harris ‘it is an attempt at looking beyond ‘ what is apparently clear, reasonably understandable and obviously stated. This approach puts a pressure on the students and teachers alike to be ‘creative contributors’ to the knowledge or information already contained. It is to be debated and decided if this ‘creativity’ (if I may use this term) is welcome. If so, then, the list of factors which normally influence the analysts in contributing to meaning should also be debated.

If we approach this field from semantic level, it will result in continual investigation into meaning. In this method discourse analysis will be treated as an assault on the written work or spoken matter to know and appreciate how the language is used to convey meanings. The relationship between words and meanings and the association between symbols and suggestion would dominate our discussion. As we all know ‘meaning is never static and fixed’. Search for meaning is eternal. The catch of meaning is just an accident. The temporary stopover that we take or the temporary pause that we make in our continual search, in the words of Jaques Derrida is ‘meaning’. But, this approach to discourse demands so much of previous knowledge on the part of the readers.

There are some scholars who confuse between ‘analyzing’ a discourse and ‘critiquing’ it. Discourse Analysis is not ‘just a criticism’ in the normal sense that we understand criticism. In all literary criticism the critic, with his possessed soul, would cross the limits, though there are exceptions, in order to ‘contribute’ his understanding. In this contribution a critic equals himself to be a creative genius. Most often we hear such instances of critical geniuses surpassing the so-called original genius in ‘inventing’ new ideas from the same old words. But, in the recent times

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) gets closer to the field of criticism. The most interesting contradiction that this field faces as a challenge is if an analysis be critical. If it is going to be critical, then it may lose the meaning of ‘analysis. Hence the very field Critical Discourse Analysis is steeped into the mire of contradictions and confusion. Let the time decide on that and rescue it sooner than later.

Of the challenges that teachers of this course face the most significant one is related to the question of where to start from. The quality experience of many teachers who are into this field suggests that it is advisable and also convenient to start with the language aspects of the discourse before attempting to analyze. The language aspects include giving students required inputs to understand and appreciate how ‘language is at work’ in a discourse, how different cohesive devised used to advance the purpose of discourse, how communion strategies are used to get across to the readers. This simple appreciation of discourse in mere linguistic or peripheral level will lead the students into great discoveries of those factors which make a discourse every charming and consistently compelling.

References

Austin,J.L. How to Do Things with Words : Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. 1962.

Brown, G. and Yule G .Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP, 1983.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge, CUP, 1987.

Brazil, D. The Communicative Value of Intonation in English. Cambridge:CUP, 1977.

Bloor, T. and Bloor, M. The Functional Analysis of English, A Hallidayan Approach.London: Arnold. 1995.

Corder,S.Pit. Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1973.

Coulthard,M and Ashby, M.C. A Linguistic Description of Doctor-Patient Interviews. Studies in Everyday Medical Life. Martin Robertson; London, 1976.

Duranti, A. Linguistic Anthropology. New York: CUP. 1997

Duranti, Alessandro. Ethnography of Speaking :Cambridge, CUP. 1988.

Danes, F. Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of Texts. The Hague Mouton. 1977.

De Beaugrande, R and Dressler, W. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. 1981.

Derrida, Jaques. Dissemination, John Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Fairclough,N. Language and Power. New York; Longman, 2000.

Garfinkel, H. Studies in Ethnomethodology, Malden. Blackwell Publishing. 1967.

Gumperz, John. Language in Social Groups. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1971.

Grice, H.P. Logic and Conversation. Academic Press, 1975

Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. Language , Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: OUP, 1985.

Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar.London.Edward Arnold. 1985.

Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. Cohesion in English : London. Longman, 1976.

Harris,Zelling. ‘Discourse Analysis Reprints’, Mouton &Co., 1963

Hudson, R. Sociolinguistics, Cambridge: CUP, 1980

Huckin, T.N. Critical Discourse Analysis, CUP, 1997. Hatim, Basil and Mason Ian. Discourse and the translator. Language in social Life Series. Longman, 1990.

Hatim, Basil and Mason Ian. Discourse and the translator. Language in social Life Series. Longman, 1990.

Johnstone, Barbara. Discourse Analysis . Blackwel Publishers, 2002.

Labov, Willam. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press. 1972

Leech, G.N. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman. London, 1983.

Luke, A. Theory and Practice in Critical Discourse Analysis. Elsevier Ltd.,

Mey, J. Pragmatics . Blackwell. 1993

Millinkoff, David. The Language of the Law. WIPF & Stock Publishers, 2004

Morris, C.W. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: University Press. 1938.

Psathas, George. Conversation Analysis , Thousand Oaks: Sage. 1995.

Romaine, Suzanne. Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London:Blackwell. 1994.

Sacks, H. Lectures on Conversation. Ed.Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Bail Blackwell. 1992.

Sinclair,J. and Coulthard, M. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: OUP. 1975.

Schaffner, C. Political Speeches and Discourse Analysis. Current Issues in Language and Society ; OUP, 1996.

Searle, J. Speech Acts : An Essay in Philosophy of Language. New York, CUP, 1969.

Sperber,D and Wilson, D. Relevance, Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.

Ten Have, Paul. Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 1999.

Van Dijk,T. Critical Discourse Analysis and Conversation Analysis . OUP, 2000

Van Dijk, T. and Wodak, R. Discourse , Racism and Ideology, CUP, 1988.

Werlich, E. 1976. A Text Grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.

Yule, G. Pragmatics. OUP, 1996.