Hello everyone! Nice to see you again.
Now, we will return to the discussion with the main topic "Development: studies in pragmatics and discourse".
For this topic, there are three sub-topics that everyone should discuss:
1) Analysing the discourse in context
2) Analysing the co-text
3) Using speech acts
Please discuss in the comments column below. Express your opinion, how much do you know about these three sub-topics. It will be better if you give an example to support your knowledge and opinion. Thank you.
alright everyone! here i'll try to give my opinion based on my knowledge about analysing the discourse in context. so in a discourse, the existence of context is the important one because context can affect the meaning of words in a discourse, both in spoken and written discourse. also discourse is actually a combination of text and context. in other words, a text can be called a discourse if there is context. in this case, speakers will understand a text if they also understand the context that accompanies the text.
BalasHapusand as far as i know (you guys can correct me if im wrong), there are some types of context in discourse and one of them is situatuonal context. so it is just like the knowledge of speakers based on everything they see around them. In other words, the state of the physical situation visually regarding the place where the interaction between speakers and hearers occurs.
Hapushere i'll give the examples too.
Hapusfor example, there is a competition. lets say.. scrabble competition. if a MC give a command to start the competition, the MC can say "go!", then the participants can start playing the competition by composing words (because the situational context of the example above, of course in front of the participants there is already a scrabble board with several words already in front of it and they will arrange the words to run the race)
the meaning "go" can be different in the other competition, lets say an eating contest or eating competition. so if the MC start to say "go!", the participant will start the competition with eating the food. why? because, again, about the situational context, ofc there is a food in front of the participant and they have to eat it to run the race.
Hapusso what i mean from these example that i've provided is, the meaning of the word can be different in different context.
HapusI agree with dhea and I would like to add some about the first topic "Analyzing the discourse in context". The situational context means that the words do not have to be explicit because the surroundings provide the meaning. For example 'God it's hot in here' has place deixis in the form of a demonstrative adverb 'here' pointing to the room that they are in.
HapusThank you so much dhea for the explanation and examples. From what I read, I agree with your opinion regarding the material this time. it is not difficult to understand how pragmatics and discourse is spoken or written. However, sometimes we are a little mistaken in understanding how to analyze existing texts.
Hapusalso i would like to add about about the cultural background from discourse in context, there are three stretches of discourse that show evidence of speakers assuming a common knowledge of the course, knowledge that only members of the student group would have. By context of culture is meant the meanings and assumptions we share as a community of people. For example "Anyone got the key to the photocopier?" He assumes that all those in the room know which photocopier and key he is referring to.
HapusI agree with you and I think, context is a concept which serves to draw a clear line of demarcation between pragmatics and discourse. In addition to context, intention also helps to draw the borderlines between pragmatics and discourse. While a discourse analyst usually explains matters without having recourse to elements outside language, a pragmatist often interprets utterances by making use of different realms of human activity including that of speaker's meaning or intention.
HapusHello Dhea and other friends, here I've the same opinion with you are, as I know, context in discourse analysis is the social system or structural framework in which a conversation takes place. For example, people may have a conversation in a bar, which would provide a different context than having a conversation in an office.
HapusKomentar ini telah dihapus oleh pengarang.
BalasHapusYeah Dhea, I agree with you who said the meaning of the word can be different in different contexts. As you gave an example of using the word "go" for competition.
BalasHapusNow I'll add an example of using the word "do it now!" or "fight!" when in a state of war, when a commander orders his soldiers to do that, what his soldiers will do is shoot or put up a fight. This happens because of the context of the situation that occurs. In this case there is also a classification of speech acts, namely Directives where someone asks someone else to do something.
After reading the material provided. It can be understood that in analyzing a text, it can be done in several ways. first, through discourse in context by using the concepts of situational context, cultural and interpersonal background context, and also exophora, deixis, and intertextuality. Second, through co-text by way of grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion. The last one is using speech acts. in different ways will produce different analytical results. then the method of analysis is also different because the concepts used make a difference in each analysis.
BalasHapusanyway thank you so much adel for a brief explanation but can add to my understanding of our discussion material!
Hapusthank you for your great comments and opinion adel!
HapusI'll give my thoughts about analysing speech acts. Analyzing text using speech acts has a several concept, but I only explain about direct speech acts. Speech acts is examining the speech performed by the speakers or writers in a text. Speech acts refer to the communicative actions performed through language, where the words themselves have an intended effect or illocutionary force beyond their literal meaning.
BalasHapusMove to the direct speech acts itself, are explicit and straightforward in their intention, where the illocutionary force is directly expressed by the speaker. For example, saying "Please pass the salt" is a direct speech act with the illocutionary force of a request.
When we are going to analyze text using direct speech act, we would focus on identifying the illocutionary force behind the speech acts used by the speakers or writers. This involves considering the context, the intended meaning, and the effect the speech act has on the listener or reader.
HapusKomentar ini telah dihapus oleh pengarang.
HapusTo make it clear, I give the example below:
HapusA customer walks into a restaurant and says, "Can I have a menu, please?"
In this example, the direct speech act is a request. The customer explicitly asks for a menu using the phrase "Can I have a menu, please?" The meaning and intention behind the statement are clear, and no additional interpretation or context is necessary to understand the request.
From a pragmatic perspective, we can consider the following elements:
1. Context: The context is a restaurant, which implies that menus are available for customers to browse and select their desired dishes.
2. Background knowledge: Both the customer and the restaurant staff have shared knowledge about the typical interaction and expectations in a restaurant setting. This background knowledge helps shape the interpretation of the request.
3. Speaker intention: The customer's intention is to obtain a menu, indicating a desire to explore the available options before making a selection.
4. Social norms: In this context, it is a social norm for a customer to request a menu upon entering a restaurant. This shared understanding helps the interaction proceed smoothly.
Okay that's my opinion about speech acts. You can also add another example too or correct me if I'm wrong.
Agreed Dimas, By examining the illocutionary force, we aim to uncover the underlying purpose or intention of the speech acts. This involves deciphering whether the speaker/writer intends to assert, question, command, request, advise, or express other types of speech acts. Understanding the illocutionary force helps us grasp the communicative intention behind the words, enabling us to interpret the text more accurately.
HapusMoreover, analyzing direct speech acts involves considering the broader context in which the speech acts take place. This includes examining the social, cultural, and situational factors that influence the speaker's/writer's choice of speech acts. Different contexts may require specific speech acts to achieve desired communicative goals or to conform to societal norms.
For example, when someone says, "The movie was fantastic!", the illocutionary force behind the speech act is to assert or express a positive opinion about the movie. Recognizing the illocutionary force helps us grasp the communicative intention behind the words and interpret the message accurately.
thank you dimas for the great explanations!
HapusThank you dimas for the explanation and examples. I agree with you and I think once you start looking at utterances in terms of what they do, i.e. their function, you could consider every utterance to be a kind of speech act.
Hapusgreat dimas, I agree with your explanation
HapusAlright Dimas, here I will add a little about the three types of speech acts. There are 3 types of speech acts, namely:
Hapus1. A locutionary speech act occurs when the speaker performs an utterance (locution), which has a meaning in the traditional sense.
2. An illocutionary speech act is the performance of an act of saying something with a specific intention.
3. 3. A perlocutionary speech act happens when what the speaker says has an effect on the listener.
And here I agree that the example given by Dimas is the second type of speech acts (types number 2) where what the customer says has a specific purpose.
Hello everyone, I will explain a little about the main topic "studies in pragmatics and discourse. Pragmatics is a field of study that investigates those aspects of language that are context-variant. Discourse analysis resembles pragmatics in that it also studies language in use but it differs from pragmatics through its emphasis on the structure of texts and its concentration on longer chunks of language. Pragmatics and discourse are approaches to studying language’s relation to Contextual Background features. They study Text, Context and Function.
BalasHapusContext can be defined as the circumstances that form the setting for an event statement or idea. It can also be considered as the situation, the events or information that are related to something and that can help you to understand this something.
Hi Grasella, thanks for the explanations. Here I wanna add a little about what u said. Pragmatics as the study of how the meaning of spoken and written discourse is related to the context in which that speech and writing occurs. Pragmatics is specifically concerned with how speakers' shared interests and purposes shapes discourse. The role of Pragmatics and Discourse is central to the research of various faculty in the department, from a variety of perspectives, including syntax, semantics, typology and sociolinguistics.
HapusMybe this overall thing about discourse and pragmatics.
thank you grasella. I agree with your opinion and also want to add some. Linguistic context can eliminate ambiguities, indicate the reference of endophora, predict ensuing content, help guess word meaning, and supplement omitted information in discourse analysis. Situational context plays the role of understanding illogical sentences, supplementing omitted information and filling the semantic vacancy.
HapusAlright, thank you for your explanation Grasella!
HapusFrom what i read in the book i can know that. Discourse in context is the discourse elaborates its context and the context helps interpret the meaning of utterances in the discourse, with situational context, cutural and interpersonal context, exophora, deixis, and intertextuality. Co-text with grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion. And speech acts, where there are certain aims beyond the words or phrases when a speaker says something. In analyze the text with speech act through the direct speech For example, when someone says “it's cold outside”, the direct speech act of this utterance is to inform the hearer about the real conditions outside
BalasHapusI want to give my understanding about co-text feel free to discuss with me
BalasHapusCo-text refers to the words and phrases that surround a particular linguistic unit within a given discourse. It provides contextual information that helps determine the meaning and interpretation of that unit. By analyzing the co-text, we can fill in gaps, resolve ambiguities, and make more accurate interpretations.
For example, consider the sentence, "She saw a bat." Without any co-text, it is ambiguous whether "bat" refers to the flying mammal or the sports equipment. However, when we provide additional co-text like, "She saw a bat hanging upside down," the intended meaning becomes clear. The co-text plays a crucial role in disambiguating the word and understanding the intended message.
Thanks for the explanations, Yusri. Just adding yours, in my mind of course co-text is important which is refers to the language immediately surrounding the item in question which tells its meaning.
HapusFor example, the word bark is a noun in
*The tree has silver bark.
and a verb in
*I wish that dog wouldn't bark so much.
Only the co-text allows us to understand which meaning of the word is the correct one to assume.
That's great Yusri, and I'll give my opinion if you guys are still confused about how we can analyze the co-text itself. As I explain below, we can analyze from grammatical and lexical cohesion. Because, this is not only about what is co-text itself but also in various perspectives.
HapusSo far, so great. It has really clarified my doubt in this topic. Thank you!
HapusAlright. After I read this material in the book: Cutting by J (2002), here are some insights that I can share:
BalasHapus1) Analyze the discourse in context
In this section, we are meant to analyze a discourse, and in this case, the discourse in question is in the form of spoken language. Every discourse has a context, and there are three contexts that I studied: situational, cultural and interpersonal background.
Situational context is a context that describes where and how the atmosphere of the speaker is during the conversation. Then for Cultural, this is a kind of context of habits that are carried out by certain people. Then the last one is interpersonal background. This context shows the background of each speaker as to who they are and what they usually do.
Also in a discourse, we will find a lot of exphora, deixis and intertextuality in it. I'm sure all of you already know about these three things.
2) Analyzing the co-text
In this section we will analyze a text from its grammatical and lexical cohesion. The grammatical in question does not only show the function of the use of the word itself, but there are various perspectives in it. In grammatical there are several patterns that we need to understand: endophoric reference, substitution and ellipsis. Endophoric is a reference that is still in the text, consisting of anaphoric and cataphoric. Substitution means a substitute sentence, yes I simply conclude it that, and ellipsis is a word or sentence that is omitted, but people can still understand the text even though they find these two patterns.
Then in lexical cohesion, there are several types of it that we need to know: repetition, synonym, antonym, hyponymy and meronymy. These are the types of lexical cohesion that are very important to understand.
3) Using speech acts
There are two kinds of speech acts: direct and indirect. Direct means speech that can be understood immediately, meaning by saying the actual sentence, while indirect means that there is another meaning spoken and in this case, we will analyze again how the locution, ilocution, and perlocution are. In short so. We can find these two types of speech acts either in interactional or transactional functions. I'm sure you guys must have learned both types of conversation. In the speech act, there is also the concept of felicity condition, which is a condition where communication can work well if it is done by the right person, at the right place, at the right time, with a specific purpose. In short, this concept is a procedure in communication that must be fulfilled.
i see! thank you tera for the very good explanation about this material. i think yours is also easy to understand.
HapusThank you for the long explanation you have provided tera! But I'm still a little confused about this. You mentioned that in speech acts there is also the concept of a felicity condition, right? so what happens if this concept is not found in a conversation? will the particular purpose of the conversation be not delivered?
HapusKomentar ini telah dihapus oleh pengarang.
BalasHapusIn advance, thanks to all of you who have given your thoughts to all of us.
BalasHapusI am also here to share a little review of our material. andI will explain a little in outline.
1. Analysing the discourse in context:
Analysing the discourse in context involves examining and understanding the way language is used within a particular context or situation. It goes beyond the surface-level understanding of individual words and sentences and focuses on the overall meaning, intentions, and social implications of the discourse. This analysis considers factors such as the participants, their roles, the purpose of the communication, and the cultural and social factors that influence the discourse. By analysing the discourse in context, one can gain insights into the underlying meanings, power dynamics, and ideologies embedded within the communication.
2. Analysing the co-text:
Analysing the co-text involves examining the linguistic and textual features that surround a specific word, phrase, or utterance. It focuses on the immediate linguistic context and seeks to understand how the co-textual elements contribute to the interpretation and meaning of the target unit. This analysis considers syntactic relationships, semantic associations, and pragmatic implications within a given text or discourse. By analysing the co-text, one can uncover nuances, disambiguate meanings, and interpret the intended message more accurately.
3. Using speech acts:
Using speech acts refers to the intentional use of language to perform specific actions or functions beyond conveying literal meanings. Speech acts theory, developed by philosophers like J.L. Austin and John Searle, emphasizes that speech is not only about conveying information but also about performing acts and influencing social reality. Speech acts can include making requests, giving commands, making promises, expressing gratitude, or even creating legally binding contracts. By understanding the different types of speech acts and their associated conventions, illocutionary force, and perlocutionary effects, one can interpret the intended meaning and pragmatic implications behind a speaker's words. Understanding speech acts is crucial for effective communication, as it helps avoid misunderstandings, recognize indirect speech, and grasp the social and cultural dimensions of language use.
Overall, these three concepts are important tools for analysing and interpreting language in context. They provide insights into the deeper layers of meaning, the influence of social and cultural factors, and the ways in which language is used to perform actions and shape social reality.
Woww nice Estu. Good explanation, thank you so much.
Hapus