Discourse Analysis

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

A.  Background

People in variety of academic departments and disciplines use the term of “discourse analysis” for what they do, how they do it, or both. Many of these people, thought by no means all, have some training in general linguistic, and some would identify themselves primarily as linguistic. Others, however, would identify themselves primarily with other fields of study, such as anthropology, rhetoric, cultural studies, psychology, or educational research, to give just a few of the possibilities. Discourse analysts pose many different question and propose many different sorts of answer. In one journal issue devoted to discourse analysis (Basham, Fiksdal, and Rounds, 1999), for example, there are papers by eleven people who all think of what they do as discourse analysis. One of these authors talks about the descriptive terms used of O.J. Simpson in the media coverage of his murder trial. One talks about differences between English and Japanese. One describes newspaper coverage of a prison scandal in England. Another discusses metaphor, and another analyze expressions of identity in Athabaskan (Native American) student writing. One talks about poem, and there is a paper about the epitaph of the spiritual master of a sect of Muslim and one about whether the pronoun I should appear in formal writing. One paper is about the connection between personal pronouns and the human experience of self-hood, one is about political debate, one is about using case study as a way of studying sociolinguistic variation. The papers make points such as these: media coverage of O.J Simpsons was racist; the Japanese word jinkaku,used in Japan’s new post-World War II constitution as equivalent for English expression Individual dignity, both represented and shaped a particularly Japanese way of thinking and talking about the public person; female US college students describing seminars use metaphors of sharing whereas male students use metaphors of competing; poems by Gerard Manley Hopkins operate on numerous levels at once; the Michigan Bektashi Muslims manage to create a sense of continuity despite massive cultural and geographical changes and in several radically different languages; student need a voice with which to write in academia.

It might appear that the only thing all these projects have in common is that, on one way or another, they all involve studying language and its effects. Is discourse analysis, then, simply the study of language and its effect? It has been described that way. It has been suggested, for example, that “the name for the field ‘discourse analysis’… says nothing more or other than the term ‘linguistic’: the study of language” (Tannen, 1989: 6). In a way, this is exactly correct: discourse analysis is the study of language, in the everyday sense in which most people use the term. What most people mean when they say “language” is talk, communication, discourse. (In formal language study, both descriptive and prescriptive, the term “language” is traditionally used differently, to refer to structures or rules that are thought to underlie talk.) Even if discourse analysis is, basically, “the study of language,” however, it is useful to try to specify what makes discourse analysis different from other approaches to language study. One way to do this is by asking ourselves what we can learn by thinking about what “discourse” is, and about what “analysis” is.

B.  Problem Statement.

In order to describe several part of discourse analysis, the writer limits the discussion into problems as formulated as follows:

1)      Interactional and transactional view.

2)      Utterance and sentence

3)      Context.

CHAPTER 2

THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

1.    Discourse

To discourse analysts, “discourse” usually means actual instance of communication in the medium of language. “Discourse” in this sense is usually a mass noun. Discourse analysts typically speak of discourse rather than discourses, the way we speak of other thing for which we often use mass noun, such as music (“some music” or “three pieces of music” rather than “three musics”) or information (“the flow of information;” “a great deal of information” rather than “thousands of informations”). Communication can of course involve other media besides language. Media such as photography, clothing, gesture, architecture, and dance are meaningful, too, and discourse analysts often need to think about the connection between language and other such semiotic systems.

Not all linguistic communication (that is, communication that utilizes language rather than some other communicative system) is spoken or written: there are manual languages, such as American Sign Language, whose speakers use gesture rather than sound or graphic sign. (It is conventional to use the term “speaker” as a cover term for people who are writing or gesturally signing in addition to those who employ the aural-oral mode. Doing this is convenient, but also can make it seems as if spoken language is somehow more natural or neutral or normal than signing or writing are.

Calling what we do “discourse analysis” rather than “language analysis” underscores the fact we are not centrally focused on language as abstract system. We tend instead to be interested in what happens when people draw on the knowledge they have about language, based on their memories of things they have said, hear, seen, or written before, to do thing in the world: exchange information, express feeling, make things happen, create beauty, entertain themselves and others, and so on. This knowledge – a set of generalizations, which can sometimes be stated as rules, about what words generally mean, about what goes where in a sentence, and so on – is what often referred to as “language”, when language is thought of as an abstract system of rules or structural relationships. Discourse is both the source of this knowledge (people’s generalizations about language are made on the basis of the discourse the participate in) and the result of it (people apply what they already know in creating and interpreting new discourse).

Scholars influenced by Foucault (1972; 1980; 1990) sometimes use “discourse” in a related but somewhat different sense, as a count noun. “Discourse” in this sense can be enumerated and referred to in the plural. They are conventional ways of thinking. These linked ways of talking and thinking constitute ideologies (set of interrelated ideas) and serve to circulate power in society. In other words, “discourse” in this sense involve patterns of belief and habitual action as well as pattern of language. Discourses are ideas as well as ways of talking that influence and are influenced by the ideas. Discourses, in their linguistic aspect, are conventionalized sets of choice for discourse, or talk.

2.    Analysis

Why discourse analysis rather than “discourseology,” on the analogy of “phonology,” “discourseograhpy,” on the analogy of “ethnography,” or “discourse criticism,” on the analogy of “literary criticism” or “rhetorical criticism”? The answer has to do with the fact that discourse analysis typically focuses on the analytical process in a relatively explicit way. It is useful to think o f discourse analysis as analogous to chemical analysis. Like chemical analysis, discourse analysis is a methodology that can be used in answering many kinds of question. As we have already seen, discourse analysts start out with a variety of research question, and these research questions are often not question that only discourse analysts task. Instead, they are often questions that discourse analysts share with other people, both in linguistics and in other fields. Some discourse analysts ask question that are traditionally asked in linguistic: question about linguistic structure, about language change, about meaning, about language acquisition. Other discourse analysts ask question that are more interdisciplinary: question about such thing as social roles and relation, communication and identity. What distinguishes discourse analysis from other sorts of study that bear on human language communication lies not in the questions discourse analysts ask but in the way the try to answer them: by analyzing discourse – that is, by examining aspects of the structure and function of language in use.

Perhaps the most familiar use of the words “analysis” is for processes, mental or mechanical, for taking things apart. Chemical analysis, for example, involves using a variety of mechanical techniques for separating compounds into their elements parts. Mental analysis is also involved, as the chemist thinks in advance about what the compounds parts are likely to be. Linguistic analysis is also sometimes a process of taking apart. Discourse analysts often find it useful to divide longer stretches of discourse into parts according to various criteria and then look at the particular characteristic of each part. Division can be made according to who is talking, for example, where the subject ends and the predicate begins. Are grammatical patterns different when social superiors are talking than their subordinates are? Does new information tend to come in the first sentence of a paragraph? Are topic changes signaled by special markers? Do sentence subjects tend to be slots in which events or action or feeling can be presented as object? Discourse can be taken apart into individual words and phrases, and concordances of these – sets of statistic about where a particular word is likely to occur, how frequent it is, what words tend to be close to it – can be used to support claims about how grammar works or what words are used to mean.

But analysis can also involve taking apart less literally. One way of analyzing something is by looking at it in a variety of ways. An analysis in this sense might involve systematically asking a number of questions, systematically taking several theoretical perspectives, or systematically performing a variety of tests. Such as an analysis could include a breaking-down into parts. It could also include a breaking-down into functions, or according to participants, or setting or process.

CHAPTER 3

DISCUSSION

1.    Transactional and interactional view.

The analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of language in use.That function which language serves in the expression of ‘content’ we will describe as transactional, and that function involved in expressing social relations and personal attitudes we will describe as interactional. Lyons (1977:32) observes that the notion of communication is readily used ‘of feeling, moods, and attitudes’ but suggests that he will be primarily interested in ‘the intentional transmission of factual, or propositional, information’. Similarly Bennet (1976:5) remarks ‘it seems likely that communication is primarily a matter of a speaker’s seeking either to inform a hearer of something or to enjoin some action upon him’.

We shall call the language which is used to convey ‘factual or propositional information’ primarily transactional language. In primarily transactional language we assume what the speaker (or writer) has primarily in mind is the efficient transference of information. Language such a situation is primarily ‘message oriented’. It is important that the recipient gets the informative detail correct. Thus if a policeman give directions to a traveler, a doctor tells a nurse how to administer medicine to a patient, a householder puts in an insurance claim, a shop assistant explains the relative merits of two types of knitting wool, or a scientist describes an experiment, in each case it matter that the speaker should make what he says (or writes) clear. There will be unfortunate (even disastrous) consequences in the real world if the message is not properly understood by the recipients.

Conventional analysts have been particularly concerned with the use of language to open talk-exchanges and to close them. Conversational analysts have been particularly concerned with the use of language to negotiate role-relationships, peers-solidarity, the exchange of turns in a conversation, the saving of face of both speaker and hearer (cf. Labov, 1971a; Brown and Levinson, 1978; Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974; Lakoff, 1973).

It is clearly the case that a great deal of everyday human characterized by primarily interpersonal rather than the primarily transactional use of language.

For the example, we will go to the text titled I Always Sit Here behind You. Transactional and interactional view can be seen from this following part:

It was still very early in the morning; Jack was sitting on the train compartment though. This is the way Jack always does every day to go to work, since his office is somewhat far away from his house. To avoid traffic jams along the rush hours, he more comfortably takes railway transportation. He was now reading a newspaper that he had bought before he got on to kill the tiring hours in a train.

There is important information inside of opening paragraph of this passage. We can found that the writer wants to inform us about Jack’s daily life. Without this opening paragraph, we may not understand with what the writer mean is. To make it clearer, try to omit opening paragraph, then goes to the next paragraph. If you feel something weird when you are reading, it can be assume that you have already miss one important information which should you get before.

Another example of the language use which is seen from transactional view can be seen from this following part;

What are you getting at?” Jack wondered, “Why did you ask me that way? What’s wrong, then? Do I have something to do with you?

In the example above, Jack feels that the man is going too deep in his business. We assume that Jack saw the man’s speech from Transactional view. The respond will be different if Jack saw the man’s speech from interactional view. At American and British culture, “a question is a real question” it means that if someone ask to you about what you do or what will you do, that person must be really wants to know about the things you do.

Next examples are the language use which is seen from interactional view can be seen from these following parts;

When he was carried away with his reading, he felt a touch on the shoulder and a voice saying, “Good morning, excuse me for asking.” A bit surprised, Jack answered, “Surely”. The man from behind went on “Do you lead an interesting life?”

The man answered, “No, no I’m sorry but you go to work in the same time every morning, in the same railway station. You sit in the same seat, and you read the same newspaper on the same articles first after another. Do you think that is interesting?”

In both part, the man -who touched Jack’s shoulder- is trying to start a conversation with Jack. Simply said, it is a kind of lip service, if it is seen from Interactional view. As we know, in interactional view we use the language to maintain our social relationship. In this case, the man use the language for it and information or message becomes unimportant. Moreover, at the end of paragraph, the man – who touch Jack’s shoulder- still try to continue his conversation with jack by saying this following expression;

In a calm temper the man said,” Yes, of course, because I always sit here behind you every morning. But you don’t answer my question yet?!”

It can be assumed that the man wants to going on his conversation with Jack. The conversation will be going on if Jack responds the man’s question.

2.    Sentence and Utterance

It might seems reasonable to propose that the feature of the spoken language outlined in the preceding section should be considered as features of utterance, and those features typical of written language as characteristic of sentences. Simply said that utterances are spoken and sentences are written. In the case of term sentence, it is important to be clear about the type of object one is referring to Lyons makes a distinction between ‘text-sentence’ and ‘system-sentence’. System sentences never occur as the product of ordinary language-behavior. Representations of system-sentences may of course be used in metalinguistic discussion of the structure and function of language and it is such representations that are customarily cited in grammatical description of particular language (Lyons, 1977:31).

Sentence is grammatically complete string of words expressing a complete thought (Hurford & Heasley, 1983:18). Sentence is neither a physical event nor a physical object. It is conceived abstractly, a string of word put together by grammatical rules of language. A sentence can be thought of as the ideal string of words behind various realizations in utterances and inscriptions (Hurford & Heasley, 1983:16). Simply said that a sentence at least consist of subject and predicate or formed by noun phrase and verb phrase. In the other hand, utterance is any stretch of talk, by one person, before and after which there is silence on the part of that person. An utterance is used by particular speaker, on a particular occasion, of a piece of language, such as sequence of sentences, or a single phrase, or even a single word (Hurford & Heasley, 1983:15). Simply said, utterance is speech with a complete thought. And of course utterance need context to make it easier to be understood.

Here are some examples of sentence inside of the text titled I Always Sit Here behind You;

1. He more comfortably takes railway transportation

(Noun phrase)               (Verb phrase)

2. He was now reading a newspaper that he had bought before he got on to

(Noun phrase) (Verb phrase)              (Adjective clause)

kill the tiring hours in a train.

From the examples above we can state that both examples are kind of sentence. Both examples has minimal requirement to be claimed as a sentence. There is subject and predicate on both examples. And of course there is noun phrase and verb phrase in each example which already written above.

In the other hand, we are able to find the example of utterance inside the text titled I Always Sit Here behind You;

Do I have something to do with you?” The man answered, “No, no I’m sorry……”

“No,no …” is an example of utterance. “No, no…” if has to be written at complete string, it would become “No, you don’t”. But in the text, the man tends to use that utterance because they have conversation and both of them are understand with the context. It would be confusing if we use “No, no …” without any context. Of course it will be has different meaning if we put “No.no …” in different context. Such as this following illustration;

There are two men at the library. Both of them want to borrow the same book.

A: “Would you mind if I borrow this book first? I really need it...”

B: “No.no…”

3.    Context

Linguistic string (sentence) can be fully analyzed without taking “context” into account has been seriously questioned. If the sentence-grammarian wishes to make claims about the ‘acceptability’ of a sentence in determining whether the strings produced by his grammar are correct sentence of the language, he is implicitly appealing to contextual considerations.

Context is divided into several aspect such as setting (place, time, psychological), participant, role relation, social class, topic, situation, and values or norm.

Setting is divided into place, time and psychological. The different place setting of the using of language can make geographical dialect. Other aspect of setting is time. Time is divided into synchronic and diachronic. Synchronic time is defined as the time where the speaker is. In the other hand, diachronic time is defined setting time which is based on history. Psychological is something related with the psychology of the speaker or the hearer.

Participant is defined as anyone who is involved into the conversation. Role relation is related with who talk to whom in the social class (upper class, lower class, white collar, blue collar). Social class is divided based on wealth, education level, religion, and more. The next aspect of context is topic. Topic is simply said what they (speaker and hearer) are talking about. Situation is divided into formal (school, office, college) and informal. Values or norm connects to the rule of each culture. Every place in every country has its own values or norm and that is the important thing that we have to follow.

Participant inside the text titled I Always Sit Here behind You is Jack and the man. It can be seen from this part

When he was carried away with his reading, he felt a touch on the shoulder and a voice saying, “Good morning, excuse me for asking.” A bit surprised, Jack answered, “Surely”. The man from behind went on,

Meanwhile, the topic which they are talking is about Jack’s daily activity. it can be seen from this part;

No, no I’m sorry but you go to work in the same time every morning, in the same railway station. You sit in the same seat, and you read the same newspaper on the same articles first after another. Do you think that is interesting?”

The man feels curious about Jack is because every day he seat behind Jack but they never have a conversation. For the situation if the conversation is informal situation.

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

The analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of language in use.That function which language serves in the expression of ‘content’ we will describe as transactional, and that function involved in expressing social relations and personal attitudes we will describe as interactional.

Sentence is grammatically complete string of words expressing a complete thought (Hurford & Heasley, 1983:18). Sentence is neither a physical event nor a physical object. It is conceived abstractly, a string of word put together by grammatical rules of language. A sentence can be thought of as the ideal string of words behind various realizations in utterances and inscriptions (Hurford & Heasley, 1983:16). Simply said that a sentence at least consist of subject and predicate or formed by noun phrase and verb phrase. In the other hand, utterance is any stretch of talk, by one person, before and after which there is silence on the part of that person. An utterance is used by particular speaker, on a particular occasion, of a piece of language, such as sequence of sentences, or a single phrase, or even a single word (Hurford & Heasley, 1983:15). Simply said, utterance is speech with a complete thought. And of course utterance need context to make it easier to be understood.

Context is divided into several aspect such as setting (place, time, psychological), participant, role relation, social class, topic, situation, and values or norm.

BIBLIOGRAHPHY

http://books.google.co.id/books?id=2QGhspbIA_cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=discourse+analysis&client=firefox-a&cd=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.co.id/books?id=9gUrbzov9x0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=discourse+analysis&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

James R.Hurfod, & Brendan Heasley (1983) ‘Semantic: a coursebook’ Cambridge University Press.

Gillian Brown & George Yule (1983) ‘Discourse Analysis’ Cambridge University Press.