Riassunto esame linguistica inglese (secondo anno), libri consigliati: "Discourse analysis", Widdowson e "Translating texts from theory to practice", Ulrych

APPROACH.

The choice and ordering of the theme and rheme in relation to superior text

units (paragraph, chapters) and the whole text is referred to as thematic

progression.

The most common pattern of thematic progression are:

a) -Linear thematization of rhemes, the most basic and straightforward form

of thematic progression

b) -Thematic progression with constant theme: subsequent themes are

related to the first theme

c) -Thematic progression by means of a split theme

d) -Thematic progression with subsequent themes derived from hypertheme

or metatheme

e) -Thematic progression with subsequent constant themes related to the

first rheme

f) -Thematic progression with subsequent new themes related to a constant

rheme

COHERENCE AND COHESION

People don’t communicate in grammatical unit but in semantic units.

The distinction between a grammatical unit and a unit of meaning is that the

former refers to a formal level of language (how sentences are organized into

texts) and the latter to a functional level (how people put language to

meaningful use).

So, we can distinguish coherence and cohesion.

Coherence refers to the organisation of meaning in relation to one another.

The elements of the text correspond to the natural, real-world order of events

or sequences.

It refers to the semantic unity created between the ideas, sentences,

paragraphs and section of a piece of writing. It also means that a text is easy to

read and understand because it follows a certain kind of logical order and the

organization of ideas is systemical and logical.

The readers make cognitive links in the text and recognizes textual patterns.

These patterns are manifested in functional relationships between pieces of a

text (textual segments): phrases, clauses sentences or groups of sentences.

These relationships can be of various kinds:

a) Phenomenon-reason

b) Phenomenon-example

c) Cause-consequence

d) Problem-solution

e) Instrument-achievement

COHESION

It represents the grammatical and lexical relationship between different

elements of a text which hold it together. To achieve good cohesion you need

to know how to use cohesive devices.

So, a text is cohesive if its elements are linked together and it is coherent if it

makes sense.

But a text can be for ex. Cohesive (linked together) but incoherent

(meaningless) and vice versa.

COHESIVE DEVICES

REFERENCE, SUBSTITUTION, ELLIPSIS AND CONJUCTION

REFERENCE

Reference includes personal pronouns, definite article, deictics (this/that,

these/those, here/there etc), same different, other, else, such etc.

-Anaphoric reference (endophoric, inside the text): when we refer back to

an element of the text called the antecedent

-Cataphoric reference (endophoric): when we refer forward. We have to

read on to understand the relation between the items and the referents. To

catch the reader attention.

-Exophoric reference: is related to the immediate context. Reference to a

world shared by both sender and receiver.

ELLIPSIS/SUBSTITUTION

ELLIPSIS: omission of elements

Substitution: it is used at nominal, verbal and clausal level.

CONJUNCTION

It links two sentences so presupposes a textual sequence, and signals a

relationship between segments of the discourse.

Conjuctive relations can be implicit or explicit.

THE NEGOTIATION OF MEANING

The process of communication involves the engagement of two kinds of

knowledge:

-Schematic knowledge: the ideational and interpersonal schemata which

structure people’s socio-cultural reality+

-Systemic knowledge: knowledge of what is encoded in the language system

Schemata help us to interpret but don’t determine our interpretation

COMMUNICATIVE CONVERGENCE: negotiating some type of common

agreement between the parties in an interaction.

The first person party, the sender , formulates a message by drawing on

systemic and schematic knowledge and the second person party brings similar

knowledge to allow interpretation.

There must be convergence between the two in order to have effective

communication.

How much convergence is achieved in communication will depend on there

being a measure of correspondence between p1 and p2 knowledge.

Those problems may arise if p1 uses items of language outside p2 competence

or refers to an ideational framework that p2 does not know about, or follows

interpersonal conventions that p2 is unfamiliar with.

Where the communication is enacted through immediately reciprocal

interaction of conversation, such problems can be resolved by negotiating

meaning “on-line”: p2 can ask for clarification, or add additional information, or

le the problem pass in the hope that it will get sorted out as the conversation

develops.

In written texts, where there is no possibility of reciprocal online adjustment, p1

can anticipate possible problems for p2.

In conversation, p2 is free of the need to take part in co-construction of

conversation and he’s under no constraint to make any particular adjustment

or indeed to make any adjustment at all.

Communication then is a matter of the parties concerned negotiating a

measure of convergence.

Some degree of correspondence in the prior knowledge of P1 and p2 has to

exist beforehand and the closer the correspondence the easier it is to

converge.

NEGOTIATING CONVERGENCE

For communication to take place, for text to realize a discourse function, p1

and p2 have to be parties to an agreement to co-operate in negotiating a

convergence, a meeting of minds, a mutual understanding, whereby meaning

is achieved as required by their purpouse in communicating.

THE CO-OPERATIVE PRINCIPLE

The philosopher P. Grice has proposed that when people converse they tacitly

subscribe to what he calls the co-operative principle. He suggest that the

cooperative principle can be expressed in terms of four maxims that parties in

an interaction will subscribe to, on condition that both of them also recognize

the purpose for which they are communicating in the first place.

QUANTITY, QUALITY, RELATION, MANNER

QUANTITY MAXIM

It refers to the fact of not to provide more or less information than is necessary.

This relates to the least effort principle in communication that we use as much

language as we need to make the required contextual connection and there is

no need to provide information by means of language if it is already common

knowledge.

But the assumption that p1 makes about this can be wrong. If they

underestimate how much context is shared and consequently over-textualize

by producing too much language, then what they say will be heard or read as

pointlessly, wordy or verbose.

On the other hand, if they overestimate the extent of shared contextual

knowledge and so under-textualize, then what they say will be heard or read as

obscure.

The application of this maxim depends on the context and purpose and people

may choose not to apply it deliberately. The result is conversational

implicature.

QUALITY MAXIM

Be truthful and don’t say things you know to be false. But this maxim too is

frequently violated to add extra meaning, creativity, to create an extra effect

such as irony, metaphors and other figurative language.

As the quantity maxim we should again note that compliance with this quality

maxim is regulated by what is conventionally appropriate. There are genres

which sanction the expression of falsehood, or at least being economical with

the truth. (For ex. in a funeral it is expected that you will exaggerate the virtues

and avoid mentioning anything unpalatable about the deceased)

RELATION MAXIM

Make what you say relevant to the topic or purpose of the communication.

Compliance with this maxim is well represented by adjacency pairs and it is , as

with the other, regulated by convention.

MANNER MAXIM

Be clear, avoid ambiguity and obscurity. It is related to Feasibility and

unintentional violations of this maxim can have comical consequences.

By convention, the quantity maxim is appropriately applied in newspaper

headlines to concentrate as much information into as few words possible. This

can result in expressions which are, not normally grammatically possible. (for

ex. noun phrases without determiners) or not normally appropriate

Intentional violations produce ambiguity to catch the attention.

To summarize; for communication to take place the parties involved have to

cooperate in negotiating some degree of agreed convergence and these

maxims can be taken as a set of rules to do so. And yet, people do not always

keep to the rules.

To cooperate there has to be some give and take on both sides: each party has

to concede some ground of their own. It represents his/her own individual

reality, a sense of self, a personal territory of identity, which it is their natural

instinct to assert and protect.

Cooperating can compromise your own individuality. So this cooperative

imperative is countered by another acts against it, a territorial imperative, a

need to preserve and protect one’s own space.

So it s not just the meaning that is negotiated but also human relations and p1

and p2 are also individual personalities competing to establish their own

position in the area of convergence.

CRITICAL ANALISYS

Communication involves finding words that will have the desired effect that s to

say, words which are tactically effective in regulating the position of self in

relation to the other.

These tactics find expression in a number of ways in all language use.

What motivates the use of expression rather than another?

Language will always provide the resource for alternative wordings, in fact we

can refer to same thing in different ways. In some cases, such expression is

allowed for by different connotations that are assigned to lexical items by

convention. We can find terms that correspond in denotation, but are marked

for negative or positive evaluation. For ex, adjective like idealistic, single-

minded, self-assured are taken as positive, whereas the corresponding words

doctrinaire, narrow-minded, cocky are generally taken as negative.

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALISYS

Those who follow this approach are particularly concerned with the use of

language for the exercise of the political power: for them discourses are kinds

of genre, institutionalized modes of thinking and social practice.

So CDA enquire into the role played by schematic knowledge but the schemata

they focus on have to do more with socio political values and beliefs, not only

with the ideational but also the ideological representation of reality.

In conducting a critical analysis, we have to consider the possible implicatures

that arise from maxim violations.

Textual analysis can only tell us about texts, the language that people produce

in the process of communication. It cannot tell us about the process itself,

about how people negotiate a relationship between text and context in order to