Discourse Analysis

THEORIES OF INTERTEXUALITY

Any text is infected with the meanings of all the other texts in which its words

have comported.

CULTURAL MODELS

They are simplifications about the world; they change with the time. The mind

stores connected ‘’images’’ of actual experiences, problem solves through

finding patterns in that experience, applies these patterns in a ‘’customized’’

(adapted) way to understand new experiences, and dynamically changes these

patterns in the face of new experiences. Cultural models are at work in even

the ‘simplest’ cases of communication.

We are all ‘colonized’ by a good many cultural models that have come to us

without much reflection on our part about how well they fit our interests.

Everyone has access to numerous kinds of discourses within their own

language, because of the multiple roles they perform. This diversity of socio-

linguistic experience allows the possibility of people enjoying different views of

the world as they move form one discourse to another.

CAPITOLO 6

HALLIDAY we says that ‘’a text does not consist of sentences; it is realized by

sentences.’’

GRAMMAR AND DISCOURSE FROM A CONTEXTUAL PERSPECTIVE

Hilles (2005) describes the process of examining grammar and discourse from

a contextual perspective. The first stage in this process is to make a decision as

to what aspect of language to investigate, in the next stage, to look at as many

sources as possible from reference grammar and the final stage is to test the

hypotheses that have been formed by the native speakers if they would make

the same choices that the research suggests they would make.

COHESION AND DISCOURSE

An area of language in which grammar and discourse are highly integrated is in

patterns of cohesion in texts.

COHESION refers to the relationship between items in a text such as words,

phrases and clauses and other items such as pronouns, nouns and

conjunctions. This includes the relationship between words and pronouns that

refer to that word (REFERENCE ITEMS). It also includes words that commonly

co-occur in texts (COLLOCATION) and the relationship between words with

similar, related and different meanings (LEXICAL COHESION). Cohesion also

considers semantic relationships between clauses and the ways this is

expressed through the use of CONJUNCTIONS. A further aspect of cohesion is

the way in which words such as ‘one’ and ‘do’ are used to substitute for other

words in a text (SUBSTITUTION) and the ways in which words or phrases are left

out, or ellipsed, from a text (ELLIPSIS). All of this contributes to the UNITY OF

TEXTURE of a text and helps to make the text cohesive.

STANDARDS OF TEXTUALITY

 COHESION the ways in which the components of the surface text (the



actual words we hear or see) are mutually connected within a sequence

 COHERENCE the ways in which the components of the textual world



are mutually accessible and relevant

COHESION refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text and that

define it as a text. Cohesive texts are sequences of sentences which seem to

‘hang together’, that contain what are called text-forming devices. These are

words and phrases which enable the writer or speaker to establish relationships

across sentence or utterance boundaries, and which help to tie the sentences

in a text together. Cohesion is linguistically explicit and signals underlying

semantic relationships between text elements. It is necessary in the creation of

coherent texts. Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some elements in

the test/discourse is dependent on that of another.

REFERENCE is the semantic relation that ensures the continuity of meaning in a

text. References are resources to refer to a participant or to a circumstantial

element whose identity is recoverable. Speakers use linguistic forms, known as

referring expressions, to enable hearers to identify the entity being referred to,

which is known as the referent. Reference words are words which don’t have a

full meaning in their own.

They include PERSONAL PRONOUNS/POSSESSIVES,

DEMONSTRATIVES/ADVERBS, COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS. The main

reference patterns are ANAPHORIC, CATAPHORIC REFERENCES.

ANAPHORIC R. it links back to something that went before in the text



CATAPHORIC R. it links forward to a referent in the text that follows



We have also COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS, when two or more things are

compared in a text. This can contribute to cohesion.

GRAMMATICAL COHESION

SUBSTITUTION a grammatical relation where one linguistic item substitutes



for a longer one.

It is important to grasp the difference between REFERENCE and SUBSTITUTION.

REFERENCE is a relation between the meaning of a word and a its environment

text real world.

where the environment can be the or the SUBSTITUTION is the

relation between words. References words are words looking for meaning,

substitutes are words looking for partners.

ELLIPSIS with it, an essential element is omitted from the text and can be



recovered by referring to a preceding element in the text. Ellipsis may involve

the omission of a noun or noun group, a verb or a verbal group or a clause.

CONJUCTIONS they are resources which connect messages via addition,



comparison, temporality and causality. A conjunction signals relationships that

can be fully understood through reference to other parts of the text.

LEXICAL COHESION

REPETITION repeated words or word-phrases.



SYNONYMS another word which means the same or almost the same. It



allows language users to avoid repetition.

SUPERORDINATES they are another way of avoiding repetition by using:



 HYPONYMY: a word or a word-phrase whose semantic field is included

within that of another word; ‘scarlet’, ‘vermilion’ are hyponyms of ‘red’

 HYPERNYMY: a word or a word-phrase whose semantic field is more

generic than a given word; red is hypernym of colour

COHERENCE: stretches of language are connected to each other by virtue of

conceptual or meaning dependencies as perceived by language users. What

actually gives texture to a stretch of language is not the presence of cohesive

markers but our ability to recognise underlying semantic relations which

establish continuity of sense. Cohesive markers facilitate and possibly control

the interpretation of underlying semantic relations. The coherence is a result of

the interaction between knowledge presented in the text and the reader’s own

knowledge and experience of the world, influenced by a variety of factors such

as age, sex, race, nationality, education, occupation, political and religious

affiliations. CAPITOLO 8

MULTIMODALITY

Multimodality is an inter-disciplinary approach that understands communication

and representation to be more than about language. We deal with multimodal

texts every time we read a newspaper, watch television, play a video or

computer game, or even read a book. It is also the notion of COMMUNICATION.

We communicate through MODES and MEDIA.

For example, GOODMAN (1996) points out, ‘’the advent and the wider

availability of computer technology, has changed the concept of literacy and as

a result the way we communicate. A shift from the idea that one medium

communicates in a particular way, to the idea that any one medium may

employ a number of different modes of meaning. Nowadays, texts

communicate to us in new ways.. through graphics, pictures, layout techniques

as well as through words. In fact, it is difficult these days to find a single text

which uses solely verbal English.

MULTIMODALITY analyzes and describes the full repertoire of meaning-making

resources that people use in different contexts and also how different modes

are organized to make meaning.

MODES abstract, non-material resources of meaning-making (ex. the



‘languages’ of image, sound, gesture, colour, texture, narrative)

MEDIA specific material forms in which modes are realised ( ex. a



photograph, an audio recording, a poem, etc.)

KRESS and VAN LEEUWEN (1996) argue that visual images can be read as

‘text’. Images have a grammar of their own, a set of socially constructed

resources for the construction of meaning. Two processes carrying

representational meaning in images:

 CONCEPTUAL PROCESSES: participants’ generalised characteristics-class,

age, social significance)

 PRESENTATIONAL PROCESSES: participants as belonging to a narrative.

These visual narratives express the ideational meaning, which can be

examined within transitivity analysis using the terms participants,

processes and circumstances.

COLOUR is also used to convey ‘interpersonal’ meaning. Just as language

allows us to realize speech acts, so colour allows us to realize ‘colour acts’. It

do things to or for each other,

can be and is used to ex. to impress or

intimidate through ‘POWER DRESSING’.

The concept of ‘power dressing’ was brought to popularity by John T. Molloy’s

Dress for success Women: dress for success

manuals (1975) and (1980).

Molloy’s manuals addressed a new kind of female workers entering in a typical

masculine environment recommending them a ‘’uniform’’ that would have

helped them to acquire authority, respect and power at work. Initially power

dressing consisted in a conservative style recalling directly the male wardrobe.

These outfits were usually matched with feminine accessories, discreet pieces

of jewellery like pearls, diamonds, earrings, etc. As far as colours were

concerned, more sober ones such as blue, black, navy and grey were

commonly preferred to feminine ones like salmon pink and red.

The roots of power dressing can be found in the Chanel suit of the 1920s. This

suit represented a turning point in the way women dressed. In fact, it was the

very first professional suit specifically thought for women, which enabled them

to look modern and feminine while feeling comfortable. It included traditionally

masculine elements which gave women a very authoritative appearance, but at

the same time it left space for a refined and sophisticated look. The most

important innovation of the Chanel suit was that it was deliberately designed to

adapt to the changing lifestyle of women that, during and after the World War I,

were slowly entering previously all-men environments. It was only when

enough women were clearly established as authoritative in the work

environment, that it was possible to renovate the women suit: no more

feminized imitations of men’s professional garments but a different suit,

helping women to show both their authority and their femininity. Wearing a suit

not represent an effort to camouflage with men but an effort to stand out and

define a clear visual presence. In fact, it