Schema Lingua inglese

Lingua e traduzione inglese 5

Pragmatics

Discourse Analysis & Pragmatics both focus on understanding how language is used in context; they share some elements (context, text and function) but they have different emphases and scopes, and focus on different aspects of the text:

• Discourse analysis does not go outside language and it emphasizes the structure of the text. It studies for example:
• How elements are organised;
• How a text can be considered a framework according to the social transaction;
• The exchange structure, fixed sequences + how S can influence H (see IRF)
• The conversation analysis, the structure of a conversation (i.e. turn-taking);
• The interactional sociolinguistics, (i.e. intonation, accent, body language, etc.)

Pragmatics takes into account human aspects (such as beliefs, feelings, knowledge, intentions…) and it focuses on social principles of the discourse. It studies, for example:

• The social rules a speaker uses;
• How words are used according to social distance/power;
• The unwritten maxims used by speakers in order to be accepted and/or cooperate.

Critical discourse analysis (CDA)

CDA deals with how texts influence society and shape our knowledge. It is an interdisciplinary approach to studying language and its relation to power, ideology and society. It seeks to uncover the ways in which discourse (written, spoken or visual) shapes, maintains and challenges power structures and social inequalities. It combines linguistic analysis with social theory to examine how language functions in various social contexts and how it can influence and reflect social change. CDA deals with how texts influence society and shape our knowledge.

Some examples of applications: CDA is often used to examine political speeches, policies, and debates to understand how politicians use language to manipulate public opinion, maintain power, or marginalize certain groups.

Context

DA and P both study:

CONTEXT: it is the part of the meaning defined by:

• The knowledge of the (physical and social) world;
• The socio-psychological factors that define communication;
• The time/space in which words are said.

Text/discourse

TEXT (or DISCOURSE): it is any sample of language which has a purpose, and is meaningful and unified for their users; being meaningful and unified means having the quality of coherence or relevance* (that is different from cohesion*).

Function

FUNCTION: it’s the speaker’s purpose in speaking, the goal in interacting verbally.

3 types of contexts

There are 3 types of contexts:

Situational context

1. SITUATIONAL CONTEXT: what speakers know of the environment surrounding the conversation. It is also the physical compresence of speakers & hearers.

Background knowledge context

2. BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE CONTEXT: it is the cultural knowledge, what people know about the world. It is divided into:

• CULTURAL GENERAL KNOWLEDGE = how the world works.
• INTERPERSONAL KNOWLEDGE = the private life of a person (e.g. relationship between sibling or lovers).

Cultural background (a) can be shared by a group of people and this group of people is called discourse community, for example, the supporters of a football team/music band. (i.e. creation of new lexicon like the Sheerios: Ed Sheeran’s fans).

Interpersonal knowledge (b) is what happens between siblings or lovers.

Co-textual knowledge or co-text

3. CO-TEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE or CO-TEXT: the context of the text we are focusing on. It refers to all the words surrounding a specific word we are referring to in a text.

Discourse community

Communities of speakers (smaller groups inside a larger community) who share a strong interest in a specific domain and share cultural knowledge (ex.: the supporters of a football team/music band this includes the creation of new lexicon/vocabulary like the Sheerios: Ed Sheeran’s fans).

Reference

REFERENCE: the act of referring to or pointing out something (referent) using language (referring expressions)

Referent

REFERENT: it’s the actual entity a speaker is talking about by means of referring expressions.

Referring expressions

REFERRING EXPRESSIONS: the linguistic forms/units/items we use to identify an entity (any word, phrase, or clause)

Referring expressions: ENDOPHORA is a referring expression which refers to sth within/INSIDE the same text.

Endophora (anaphora & cataphora)

There are 2 types of endophora:

• ANAPHORA: the use of a word referring to another word/phrase used earlier: Example: “Have you read “The Picture of Dorian Gray”? It is incredible”,
• CATAPHORA: the use of a word referring to a later word/phrase: Example: “If you want some, here’s salt” “Despite his hesitation, John finally ate the cake” often used to create expectation

Exophora

EXOPHORA is a referring expression used when a referent is mentioned for the first time. It depends on the context OUTSIDE the text (in which it appears).

Example: “Look at that bird!” (“bird” is introduced for the first time).

“She’s so talented. Everyone loves her.” She and everyone refer to sth outside the text itself.

To be understood it needs a shared cultural context/knowledge between S&H.

A: Yesterday, at the supermarket I met Dr. Rossi.
B: Your English Professor? st
A: Yeah, she was doing shopping. Dr. Rossi is introduced in the text for the 1 time, but A&B both know the person they are talking about (shared knowledge/cultural context between S&H).

Deixis

DEIXIS Commentato [1]: /ˈdaɪksɪs/ in Discourse Analysis. It is a referring expression connected/pointing to the referent.

In Discourse Analysis there are 3 types of deixis (plus 3 more in Stylistics: social, empathetic and discourse deixis):

• PERSON DEIXIS: the personal pronouns referring to a person. Example: “We are going on holiday”.
• PLACE DEIXIS: the linguistic form that refers to the place/location where the referent is in context. Usually, it is represented by a demonstrative adjective (this/that), or an adverb (here/there). Example: “This is my bag” – “Here is where we got married”
• TIME DEIXIS: a linguistic form that refers to time. Example: “We are going on holiday tomorrow”

Intertextuality

INTERTEXTUALITY is a referring expression which refers to an entity that has previously been mentioned BUT in a PREVIOUS CONVERSATION/in a different text.

Example: Two friends are talking about a past conversation.
A: “Did you watch that movie we talked about?”
B: “Yes, it was great!”

Intertextuality is different from exophora (referred to entities not mentioned previously in a conversation).

Cohesion vs coherence

Cohesion

COHESION: deals with how words relate to each other within the text, referring backwards or forwards to other words in the text. Cohesion ensures that individual sentences are grammatically and structurally linked. We can distinguish between grammatical and lexical cohesion. The way elements combine into a text (Halliday & Hasan). See below.

Coherence

COHERENCE/RELEVANCE: refers to the appropriateness of a text (and the choices involved in its composition) within its communicative context. For example: if in a legal text we use informal structures and vocabulary, it would be considered inappropriate (and so incoherent). A text/discourse that is meaningful and unified has the quality of coherence or relevance.

Grammatical cohesion

GRAMMATICAL COHESION: when a referring expression is linked to another within the co-text. It can be reached through:

• REFERENCE using pronouns, demonstratives, articles, i.e. through ENDOPHORA (ANAPHORA: Have you tried the cake? It is good!; CATAPHORA: If you want some, here’s some salt)
• SUBSTITUTION (My bag is broken, I need another one),
• ELLIPSIS (I want to go out, but I can’t go out)
• CONJUNCTIONS to structure the text in logical order (‘but’, ‘then’, ‘accordingly’, ‘nevertheless’) see Halliday & Hasan

Lexical cohesion

LEXICAL COHESION: It deals with the choice of vocabulary, it refers to the linking of sentences into a text. It can be achieved by means of:

• REPETITION, we use a word/phrase several times. See also Halliday & Hasan (It was cold. My hands were cold, my nose was cold and my feet were cold), “I’m tired, and I’m hungry. And my tail’s frozen. And my nose is froze. And my ears are froze. And my toes are froze.” – Lucky, 101 Dalmatians
• SYNONYMS (terrible/horrible/awful/bad) but also SUPERORDINATES and HYPONYMS (bird S for parrot H; tragedy S for Hamlet H, flower S for rose H), MERONYMS (e.g. finger/hand, leaf/tree) and ANTONYMS (e.g. happy/sad; hot/cold; big/small), see also Halliday & Hasan
• GENERAL WORDS “higher level superordinates” (thing, stuff, place, person, to do, to happen),
• COLLOCATIONS (make a decision, waste time, heavy rain, etc.) see Halliday & Hasan

Collocation

COLLOCATION (EXPECTANCY RELATION): refers to words that are frequently used together ≠ in a Lexical Sense, like ‘make’ and ‘decision’, ‘pay’ and ‘attention’, ‘waste’ and ‘time’. We say heavy rain (not strong rain).

Colligation

COLLIGATION: refers to words that are frequently used together in a Grammatical Sense (ex: the verb to look forward + preposition to + -ing form: “I look forward to hearing from you”; the verb prefer + infinitive form vs love + ing form).

Austin

How to do things with words (1962)

The book is a collection of notes (Austin’s teachings) taken by his students.

John Langshaw Austin (a philosopher of language) theorized the PERFORMATIVE HYPOTHESIS and the SPEECH ACT THEORY (between the 50s and the 60s).

When we speak, not only we describe the world or the things we see/do, but also, we create, we make things happen (performative force).

He distinguished between:

• CONSTATIVES: utterances that describe reality and can be true or false. Ex: The sky is blue
• PERFORMATIVES: utterances that create reality. Ex: I pronounce you husband and wife

Based on these premises, Austin developed the PERFORMATIVE HYPOTHESIS: behind every utterance there is always a performative verb (to order, to ask, to warn, to invite, to promise, etc.). But later he abandoned the theory, because he recognized that we do not always use such verbs to get a perlocutionary effect. (see IMPLICIT PERFORMATIVES)

The PERFORMATIVE HYPOTHESIS is what later became the SPEECH ACT THEORY.

Speech act theory

According to Austin, a speech act is “the action performed in saying something.” When an utterance is produced it can be analysed on 3 levels:

• LOCUTIONARY ACT: the locution, what is said, the speech itself, the meaning. “Is there any salt?” the sentence is a question
• ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE: the purpose/function of the uttering, the speaker's intention in making the utterance (Ex: making a request, inviting, etc.) “Is there any salt?” the sentence is a request
• PERLOCUTIONARY EFFECT: the result/effect of the words. “Is there any salt?” we want the hearer to pass us the salt!!!

Limits of the Speech Act Theory: implicit performatives

Speech acts not always are supported by a performative verb; as a matter of fact, IMPLICIT PERFORMATIVES (speech acts not supported by a performative verb) are more common and natural: ✔) )

Ex: Could you bring me a coffee, please? (implicit VS I request a coffee. (explicit

Moreover, he points out that – if their intent is NOT clear – implicit performatives can lead to ambiguity: Ex: “I’ll go home” can be a promise or a threat/warning.

Searle: speech acts and 5 macro-classes

Speech acts (1969)

To avoid misunderstandings (see: implicit performatives), SEARLE (Austin’s student) decided to classify speech acts in 5 macro-classes, that represent a categorization of the implicit performatives:

• DECLARATIONS: words that have the power to change the situation by means of specific words (I declare, I pronounce, I resign, → I pronounce you husband and wife)
• REPRESENTATIVES: words that state what the speaker thinks is the case to do → (claim, insist, doubt, predict, describe, etc. The group leader argues that the project will be over soon.)
• COMMISSIVES: words that state the commitment of the speaker to future actions (to promise, to offer, to threat, to refuse, to accept → Tomorrow, I’ll call Linda)
• DIRECTIVES: words that aim at making the hearer do something (ordering, requesting, commanding, inviting, forbidding, etc. Don’t touch that vase: it’s ancient!)
• EXPRESSIVES: words that refer to the way the speaker feels (apologizing, regretting, feeling sorry, congratulating, etc.→ I wish I had studied more.)

Searle also distinguishes between:

• DIRECT Speech Acts: express the literal meaning (when we speak, we do mean exactly what we say) Ex: “Pass the salt, please”.
• INDIRECT Speech Acts: communicate a different meaning from the apparent surface meaning (when we speak, we intend something that is quite different from the literal meaning of what we say)

Ex: If I tell you, “Come and eat with me”, not only I want you to perform the act of eating with me, but I’m also inviting you. So, there is a second intention in my words but the hearer can understand it if he can “read” from the context. Double function

Ex: Paul called yesterday, he said he wanted to talk to you.

At the same time, DIRECT DECLARATIVE and INDIRECT DIRECTIVE

Felicity condition

Between the 50s and the 60s, Austin theorized Speech Acts: the action performed in saying something. Searle, Austin’s student, in 1969, classified Speech Acts in 5 macro-classes and 2 types. The two theorists both discuss Felicity Conditions, which are the conditions that must be met for communication to be successful. However, they have different ideas.

To be successfully performed, every speech act must satisfy the felicity conditions:

• According to AUSTIN: Felicity Conditions are satisfied when each member of the conversation recognises the context and the role of the participants; the action must be carried out thoroughly and the people must have good intentions.
• According to SEARLE: Felicity Conditions are satisfied when the hearer understands what the speaker says and the speaker doesn’t play/pretend.

Sperber and Wilson: relevance theory

According to SPERBER and WILSON, RELEVANCE is the main aim of any conversation because communication is successful when the hearer can understand what the speaker means with the minimum effort.

The only maxim that is necessary for a successful conversation is that of relation → relevance.

Their theory is based on 2 main processes (that create the degree of relevance):

• The CONTEXTUAL EFFÈCTS: when we add/omit information
  EXPLICATURE - ADDING information means we are making EXPLICATURES
  SIMPLICATURE - OMITTING information means we are making IMPLICATURES
  (the information can be retrieved by the hearer thanks to the context or thanks to their background knowledge)
  At the tube station:
  A. Hi, madam. Can I help you?
  B. I need to go to Rome. (does not ask for a ticket for the tube explicitly)
  A. The ticket will cost you 3 euros.
• The PROCESSING EFFORTS: the less is the effort, the more is the relevance. We need to be clear and direct, we don’t have to ask for further effort in order to understand what we want to say.

RELEVANCE is higher when the hearer retrieves the maximum amount of information with the minimum effort.

Brown & Yule macro-functions

According to Brown and Yule, language serves two main macro-functions in communication:

• TRANSACTIONAL FUNCTION, that occurs when the language expresses content and gives information, for example, when we give info to a tourist.
• INTERACTIONAL FUNCTION, that expresses social relationships and/or personal attitudes (such as solidarity among interlocutors). To its max extent, this function is expressed by the PHATIC FORM, that is when we do not really communicate information, but we say something in order to keep the conversation open. An example is when in a queue someone exclaims “It will take ages today”. Generally speaking, small talk.

NOTE! Commentato [2]: Sembrerebbe non sia stato chiesto ultimamente all'orale.

Sinclair and Coulthard

According to Sinclair and Coulthard, when we analyse a discourse, we can use 2 approaches that have 2 different aims:

Exchange structure

(1) EXCHANGE STRUCTURE is an approach to Discourse Analysis; this structure is applicable to situations such as a teacher-students interaction or a doctor-patient relationship and it is based on 5 levels:

• ACTS: acts combine to form moves;
• MOVES: moves combine to form exchanges; IRF !!! This second level is the most interesting one, it’s defined “IRF”
  I = Initiation = from teacher/doctor
  R = Response = from students/patient
  F = Follow-up = teacher/doctor’s comment on students/patient’s answer
• EXCHANGE: exchanges combine to form transactions;
• TRANSACTIONS: transactions combine to form a lesson/relationship;
• LESSON/RELATIONSHIP: the combination of transactions.

The Exchange Structure approach starts with the theorization of a pattern and shows how conversations/data fit the model.

IRF

IRF stands for Initiation, Response, Follow-up: it is one of the 5 levels of the exchange structure (MOVES), and it describes the exchange structure commonly found in classroom discourse (conversation between teacher and student) or a doctor-patient exchange. The teacher asks a question to the student (Initiation, e.g. “What is 2 + 2?”), the student replies (Response, e.g. “Four”) and the teacher gives a feedback or adds a comment (Follow-up, e.g. “Correct, well done!”).

Conversation

(2) CONVERSATIO