DISCOURSE ANALYSISContinuum Discourse Series Series Editor: Professor Ken Llyland, Inslitute of Fancation, University of London Discourse is one of the most significant concepts of contemporary thinking in the humanities and sucial sciences as it conccms the ways language mediates and shapes our interactions with cach other and with the social, political and cultural formations of uur soviet Continuum Discourse Series aims to capture the fas interest in discourse w provide students, now and exp: chers and reseachers in applied Linguistics, EL’ and English language | bookshelf. Each bouk deals with a core topic in discourse studies to give an in-depth, structured and rendable intro- duction tu an aspect of the way language in used in real life. Othor titles in the sories (forthcoming) Metailiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing | Kan Hyland Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis Paul Bakor Spoken Viseourse: An Introduction ' Holon de Silva Joyce and Diana Slade Historieal Discourse: The Language of Time, Cause and Evaluation Caroline Coffin Mediu Discourse Joanna Thornhorrow Professional Discourse Rril-Louise Gunnarsson An Introduction ta Critical Niscourse Analysis i Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coultlard and Malcolm Coulthard Discourse Analysis An Introduction Brian PaltridgeTTT TTT TTT TTL TTT TT Tittle eee Cee ete e pete eter etter P Bel P23 2226 Continuum 2 the Tower Building 80 Maiden Lane ok 21 York Road ‘Suite 704 London SE1 7Nx New York, NY 10088 2006 Reprinted 2007, 2008 All righto reserved. No pat of duis pu ion may be reproduced or tans: tod in any form or a Tacha ‘want, eleerront¢ or mechanical, including ay infor storage or retrieval system ‘uu the publishers Copyright, Designs and Patents i woth nd courtosy of Warmer Broa. Pinte City used courtesy of HBO, A Time Warne: Beitish Library Catal A catalogue rocord fa ISBN: HB: 978-0-#264-n556—4 PB: 978-0-8264-8557-1 ‘Typeset by YIIT Printed and bous von Britain by RPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Comvall Contents Chapter 4 Chaptor 2 29 2.10 aan 212 Chapter 3 aa 32 33 Livt uf Boxes List Acknowledgements What Is discourse analysis? What is discourse analysis? Different views of discourse analysis Differences hatwaan spoken and discourse Directions for further reading Disvouree und a Discourse commu: communities iscourse. social class and social networks questions Dats unulysis projects Directions for further reading Discourse and pragmatics ‘What is pragmatics? Language, context and discourse Speech acts and disccurseContents Contents 3.4 The co-operative principle and discourse 61 5.13. Data analysis projects ue) 4.5 Flouting the co-operative principle 64 5.14 Directions for further reading 126 3.6 Cross-cultural pragmatics and discourse 66 3.7 Conversational implicatuer aud discourse 0 3.8 Politeness, face and discourse 2 Chapter 6 Discourse grammar 127 2.9 Face and politeness across cultures 7a 3.10 Politeness and gender 6 6.1 Grammar from a discourse perspective 128 411 Face-threatoning acte 7 : 6.2 The toxturo of a text 130 3.12 Politeness and cross-cultural pragmatic failure 78 6.3 Cohesion and discourse ee 3.13. Conclusion 79 6.4 Reference 13 3.14 Discussion questions 79 6.5 Lexical cohesion 133 3.15 Data analysis projects no 6.6 Collocation 137 3.18 Directions for further reading 81 6.7 Conjunction 139 6.8 Substitution and ellipsi 141 Chapter 4 Discourse and gence 82 6.9 142 6.10 145 4.1 What is a genre 24 eat progression 148 4.2 Relationships between genres 89 6.12 Focusing on cohesion in student taxts isu 4.8 Written genres across cultures oa 6.13 Discussion questions 152 44° Spokeu genres actoss cultures 9G 6.14 Data analysis projects 1a 4.5 Stops in genm analysi 98 6.15 Directions for further mading 158 4.6 The social and cultural context of yenres 98 4.7. The discourse structure af genres 99 4.4 Applications of genre analysis 102 Chapter 7 Corpus approaches to discourse analysis 155 4.9 Discussion questions 103 4.10 Data analysis projects 104 7.1 What is a corpus? * 156 4.11 Ditections for further reading. 105 7.2 Kinds of corpora 156 7.2 Design and construction of corpora 160 Chapter 5 Discourse anu conversation 106 7.4 Issues to consider gacorpus 164 7.5 ‘The Longman Spoken and Written Fnglish 5.1 Rackground to conversation analysis 107 orpus 168 5.2 ‘Transcription conventions 419A 7.6 Discourse characteristics of conversational 5.3 Sequence and structure in conversation 110 English ce} 5.4 Preference organization 116 7.7 Performance phenomena of conversational 5.5 Feedback 119 discourse 167 5.6 Repair 119 7.8 Constructional principles of coaversational 3.7 Gender and conversstion analysis 120 discourse 5.8 Conversation analysis and second 7.9 Corpus siuilies uf the social nature of discouree language conversation qt 7.10 Collocation and corpus studies 5.9 Criticisms of conversation analysis 121 7.11 Griticisms of corpus studies 5.10 A sample study: refusals 423 712 Discussion questions 5.11 Summary 125 7.13 Data analysis projects 5.12 Discussion questions 125 7.14 Directions for furthor readingContents Chapter a 9.10 on vaz References Index Gritical discourse analysis Principles of eritical discourse analysis Doing critica Gritical discourso analysis and gonro Gritical discourse analysis and framing and multimodality it and identity Gritical discourse analysis and the world wide web jams of critical discourse analysis Data analysis project Directions for further reading Doing discourse analysis Developing x discourse analysis project Choosing a research topic Focusing a research topic ‘Turning the topte into a research question Kinds of discourse analysis projects Two sample di A spoken discourse project A written discourse project Combining discourse and other research perspectives Evaluating a discourse analysis project Planning a discourse analysis project Directions for further reading 178 179 185 186 187 189 190 193, 108 196 197 197 199 List of Boxes Dox 1: Discourse analysis Box 2: Discourse community Box 3: Performativity Box 7: Geure : Conversation analysis Cohesion : Theme and vhome : Thematic development 2: Corpus studies itical discourse analysisList of Figures Figuro 4.2: Figure 4.3: Figure 4.4: Figure 4.5: Figure 4.6: Figure 4.10: Figure 4.11: Figure 6.7: Figure 6.8: Figure 69: Figure 0.10: Figure 6.1: Figure 6.2: ‘The discourse structure of a letter to the editor Typical features of a letter to the editor A genre chain: applying for a job Letter to the editor Review of the Pavilion restaurant Restanratonr shows food critic the door Notes to the food reviewer A gonro network for graduatw students Gonre chains and genre sots for the writing of Swalos’ (1998) Other Floors, Other Voices ‘The social and cultural context of Unvses and disse ‘The discourse structure of theses and dissertations Hyponymy Meronymy Further example of hyponymy Further example of mervaymy ‘Taxonnmical relationships Lexical chains: Winnie-the-Pooh Roference: Winnie-the-Puoh : Themo roitoration/constant Thematic progression: Zig-2y/linear theme ‘Thematic progression: Multiple theme/split theme ‘Thy relationship between texts, discourse practices und secfocultural practices in a critical perspective A newspaper report on an anti-nuclear demonstration List of Tables Table 5.1 Table 6.12 Table 6.2, Table 6.9 Table 8.4: Table 8.5: Table 6.6: Table 6. Table 6. Table 7.1: Common adjacency pairs and typical proforred and diapreferred socond pair parts Basic options for conjunction ‘Themo and rheme ‘Toxtual examples of theme and rhomo Example of textual theme Multiple themes ‘Theme reiteration/constant theme ‘Theme and rheme: A zig-zag/linear theme pattern ‘Thomo and home: A multiplo/split theme pattern Contexual and linguistic framework for analysisAcknowledgements I would like to thank the editor of this 2 , Ken Hyland, for support for this project and for the detailed and helpful feedback ha « gave on exch of the chaptors of this book. Thank you ulsu to Jenny Lovel at Continuum far her helpfulness and advice at each of the stagos of the book's development. 1 me sa much about discourse analys bie. They both cat p Angela Thomas, Neil England, Lyn Crant, Sal Nekane, I am also Ohashi, Joanna ‘mel Q'Shannessy, Anne Prince, Kirston Richurdsua, Neomy ‘Wei Wang, Xiaoyong Zhteng and Lan Yang. Thank you also to Eunjoo Song for the Korean example in Chapler 3. At Sophia Uni- vorsity in Tokyo where I campleted this buuk I uspeclally thank Junichi Kasojima and Kensuku Yoshida for inviting me to come to Sophia. My thanks aleo to Kolko Aduchi, Cheolgoo Bae ancl Ane Gouduit for looking after me while I was there and for the in looking after me many kindnesses that xit UP? OS, . ssi tes What is discourse oI analysis? Partridge Ve 1.6 Directions for Father reading ‘This chapter provides an overview of diacourse analysis, an approach to the analysis of language that looks at pattems of language across texts as well as Uhe suvial and cultural contexts in which the texts vccur, The uhuptur commences by presenting the origins of the term iscourse analysis, It then discusses particular issues which aro of interest to discourse analysts, such us Uke lationship between lan- ago and cocial context, culturetpecific ways of speaking and wi , and ways of organizing texts in particular social and cultural mn of communicative comp Those range from more textual discourse analysis which concentrate mostly on langua is doing in the social and cultural leadls to a discussion of the soctal constructionist view of discourse; that is. the ways in which what wo say as we speak contributes to the construction of certain views of the world, of people and, in turn, ourselves. The relationship between language and identity is then introduced. This includes a discussion of the ways in which, through our use of language, wo not only ‘display’ who we are, but also how we want people to see ns. This jes a discussion of the ways in which, throngh the use of spoken and written discourse, people both, ‘perform’ and ‘oroate’ particular social, and gendered, identities.Discourse analysis The ways in whieh ‘ thischaet ‘texts rely on other texts’ is aleu discusses in rel throughout the chapter t potnt ter, thon, 8 will be the ground for issues that ‘chapters thut follow. : Discourse an. iarourse nnalysis focuses on knowledge abuut language boyoud Sean eflause, pase and sentonce that is needed for suc: n. Werns, texts and considers the relationship batocn langage al ie corsa the ways thatthe ue of language rece i viows uf the world and diffrent understandings Teesamines hows structed through the use of di is examines both spoken and written texts. 7 asa ey of analysing connected speech und wri Zonet a aac net behaviour, He examined the frst uf within texts and the ways kinds and styles of texts. An ig Harris Hatsis had ituati af & person speaking, or ofa conversation, wr af somone wa down yccastonally over kind of book in a particul aro particular moanigs, th features associated with there, What What is dliceaurse onalysis? Innguage. is of central those meanings are, and how they are roalized interest to the area of discourse analysis i. The relationship between language and context By ‘the relationship between linguistic and Harris means how people know, from the situ how to interpret whet someone says. 1f, for example, an controller says to a pilot The ru likely mean it is not possible to land the plane at the mome may seam obvious 10 a native speaker of Engioh but 4 ot, of which there are many in the world, needs to under~ stand the rolationship between what is said and a ‘understand that they cannot land their plane at that time, that the expression The runway ts full at the moment "moaning if. a particular situativn {in this casé the plane) and may mean something different in another Taay The runway is full at the moment to a frlend who is waiting with me to pick up someone at the airport, this is now an explanation of why tho plane is late landing (however I may know pot an instruction fo not land the plane. Discourse analysis, then, is interested in ‘what happens when peuple draw on 0 they have abi things in tho world’ Gohnst use, Discourse anal in which it is used and provide a deoper understanding and appreciation of texts and how wey became meaningful to their users. Discourse analysis and pragmatics of aspects of language use that are discussed hy people the area of discourse analysis are also discussed in the area of pragmatics, Pragmatics is concerned ow the interpretation of Tanpunge depends on knowledge of the real warld, such as how The runway is full at the moment is understood as au instruction not to land a plane, rather than just a statement cof fact. Pragmat ested in what people mean by what they say, rather thal their most literal senso might mean by themsélv contrasted with semantics which deals with literal (rather than prag- matic) meaning; that is, meaning without reference to users ur the 3Discourse analysis purpose of communication (Richards and Schmidt 2002). The view of presented in this book will include work in the area that is, a consideration of the ways in which people The discourse structure of texts Discourse analysts aro also they say in the sense ot what next and so on in a conversa comathing that vurive aun across languages. An emai dei may start wi © uu is by no means the samo for example, to me from a Japanese aca- -inbex of the administrative staff ala Japanese university, reference to the weather saying, immediately aftor Dear vr Paitridge something like Greetings from a hiot and sizzling Tokyo or of courey, Grectings! I's such beautiful day today herc in Kyoto. may also say this in an email to an overseas colleague but ritual requirement in English, as it is in Japanese, There are, thus, particular things we say, and particular ways of ordering what we say lar spoken and written situations and in particular languages Mitchell (1957) was one the first researchers to examine the dis- course structure of texts. He looked at the ways in which people order what they say in buying and si actions. He looked at the overall structure of these kinds through as they carry out particular intera interest was more in tho ways in which interactions are organized at an overall textual ways in which language is used in each of the stages of a susses how language is used as, what he calls, co- operative action and how the meaning of language fies in the situa- tional context in which it is used and in the context of the text as a han, Iam walking along the street in Shanghai near a market and someone says to me Hello Mister, DVD, Tknow from the situation that I am in that they are wanting to sell me (most likely fake) DVDs. If then go into a market and someone asks what seems to me to be a very th this kind of tho buying and selling exchange the vexpuriuaee, uw typically be used in 0 interaction, and how the interaction wi a What is discourse analysis? typically end. I also start to learn other typical charact of the interaction. For example, a person will normally anly say Helfo Mister. DVD (or Hello Mister, Louis Vuitton, etc.) when Tam between stalls, not ‘when Tam in a etall and have started a buying and selling interaction with someone. Other researchers have also investigated recurring patterns in spoken interactions, although in a somewhat different way fram Mitchell and others following in that tradition, Researchers working in luc area known as conversation analysis havo looked at how poople ‘open and el ‘conversations and how people take turns and overlap tric particular, is in fine-grained analyses of spoke the use of overlap, pauses, increased reveal about how people relate to what thoy are saying and doing with language. The look at how people ‘speuk over’ what someone olso is eaying and what they arc aiming to do in doing this. They may look at how this varies in different speech situations and what the speakers understand that this means in the particular situation. In an ordinary conversation, fnr example, the ‘overlapping of speech may be an attempt by one speaker to take over the conversation from the other person. Ifthe other person duvs not ‘want them to take over the conversation, they may increase the volume of what they are saying and just keep on talking, not letting the other person interrupt them. In a differnt situotion, howover, overlapping speech may just be a case of co-operative conversational behaviour such as when one speaker gives feedback lo anollier speaker, what they are saying as they speak. In some languages, such a {or example, overlap is tolerated much more in spoken Intera than {tis in other languages, such us Euglish iv. Cultural ways of speaking and writing One useful way of looking at the ways in which language is used by particular cultural groups is through the notion of the ethnography of communication (Hymes 1964). Hymes started this work in reaction to the neglect. at the time, of gpeech in linguistic analyses and anthro- | descriptions of cultures. His work was also a reaction to viows of language which took little or no account nf the social and i guage occurs. In particular. he con- sidered aspects of speech events such as who ic speaking to wham, 5Discourse onaiysis about what, for what pu ‘on how we say and do things in culture-specific settings. Thore are, for example, particular cultural ways of bu selling things in different cultures. How I buy my lunch at a shop in an English-speaking cou ifferent, for example, from how I mignt do this in Japan. In speaking country there {5 greater ritual use of Please and Thanks on the part of the customer in this kind of interaction than there is in Japan. How I buy something it ically say much more than the customer of situation, who may indeed say nothing. This doos not mean that by ig the Japanose customer is, imply means rally differont ways of doing Tanguage in ings wit ‘The sequence of events T go through may be the these events, samo in both cultures, but the ways of nsing language 1 and other sorts of non-linguistic behaviour, may differ. v. Communicative competence and discourse Hymos's notion (107: part of the theoreti Gon ay well a, fruago teaching and learning, ft is also an important notion for the discussion of spoken and written discourse. Communicative compe- tence involves not only knowing a language, but alzo what to say to whom, and how to say it appropri (uation, That ft includes not only knowing what is gr correct and | background te the ethi recently, communi knowing how to respond to diffyrent speech acts, for example, to apologize or make ae wall as how to reapand to an apology or a request, in a particular language or cul Al sount of the sucial in which the speaking or writing oocut each other, and the community's norms, values and ‘buy the person working there as I carry out the partis this at the level of language in terms of grammar, vocabulary, discourse structures and politeness strategies, as well as how I beluave physically in the particular situation. 6 What is discourse analysis? Communicative competence is aften deserihed as heing made np of four underlying components: grammatical competonce, sociolin- c ce, discourse competence and strategic competence: guage code yammatical competence), mnguage use (sociolinguistic competence), knowledge of how to connect uttoranoes in a text 60 and coherent (discourse competence} and mastery of speakers use to compensate for breakdowns in communics they use to enhance the effectiveness of fratogic competence) (Canale and Swain 1980; Can: Discursive competence A further way of looking at cultural ways of speal through the notion of discursive compotonco (Bhatia 2004). Diecurvive competence draws together the notions of textual competence, generic competence aud social competence, competence refers to the ability to produce and interpret, contextually appropriate texts. To do thts we draw on our linguistic, textual, contextual and pragmatic knowledge of what typically occurs is typically organized and how itis typi how people use the Internet to sentenca without a capital letter is acceptable on MSN Messenger tas It is in text messaging) and that they should keep their exchanges short so they are easy to read at the other end, Generic competence describes how we are able to respond to both recurring and new communicative situations by constru proting, using and exploiting conventions associated with the use of particular kinds of texts, or genres, much as Ido when I send an email to a colleague or a text message to a friend. If [ am an experionced toxt mossagor I do this with ease, IFT am now to toxt messaging, how- ever, I have to learn how to do this, what the ‘rules’ are for this kindPiscauree anclysis present myself at a meeting at work, whether I want to be seen as suinteune who always has something to say about a point, or whethor 1 ing, or L may use in the constraints of someone to outside of the text, such as the technology | am ust I say and how { can say it. [ will also lears that a6 tho toc! changes, or I discover more advanced technology (such as a more recont version of MSN Messenger, or a more expensive wubile phone), what I say and how I can say it will change even further. 1.2 Different views of discourse analysis ‘There are in fact a number of differing views on what discourse ana~ tually is. Social science researchers, for example, might argue their work is concerned with the analysis of discourse, yet often take up ways (Fait clough 2003 one aspect of language usage to another, as well as being used forent resoarchers. Cazden (1998) describes two m those which focus op the analysis of stretches of naturally occurring language, and those which consider different ways of talking and understanding. ugh (2003) contrasts what he calls ‘textually oriented discourse analysi ‘approaches to discourse analysis that have ore of a social theoretical orientation. He docs not soo those two jaws as mutually exclusive, howaver. arguing for an analysis of dis- entation. Cameron and mpatible with each other, arguing that the \died under a textually oriented view of discourse in terms of their s ‘meanings and functions. What is discourse analysis? We ean sen, then, that the level of text. Discourse ai others. Discourse analysis considers how people manago intera with each other, how poople communicate and societies, a3 well as how they communicate with other cultures. It also focu: language, and the ideas ai use language. other groups, and ‘on how people do fs that they comm igs beyond cate as they i, Discourse as the social construction of reality ‘The view of discourse as tho socia! construction of reality soo texts as practices, The texts we write and speak both shape and ai these practices. Discourse, then, is both shaped by the wor shaping the world. Discourse is shaped by language as well as shaping language. It is shaped hy the penple who nee the language as well as shaping the language that people use. Discourse is shaped: as wi shapes the possbiltis for that medium. The purpose of the text also influences tho discourse. Discourto also chapos the rango of possible world, presenting herself as a sharing person and Prince Charles as ‘a proud man who felt low about the attention his wife was getting’ (Wetherell 2001: 15). That is, as she speaks, the Princess creates a view of herself, and the world in which she lives, in a way that she wishes people to see. As Wetherell points out: 12 and others speak, on this and many other occastons, id aot exist bofore its omongones ae dlecourss.. {Wotherell 2001: 16)Discourse analysis A further example of this social constructivist view of discourse can be seen in the text on the cover of the December 2004 Asian edition of Business Week: ‘The three scarlest words in U.S. industry: ‘The China Price’ Tho feature story sue discusses China's ability to undercut production costs to the extent that, unless US manufacturers are able to cut their prices. they can ‘kiss their customers goodbye’. his special report states that for decades economists have insisted that the US wins from globalization, Now they are not so sure. China, a former US trade representative says. ‘is a tiger on steroids’. A labour economist from Harvard University says in this series of articles that the wages of white collar workers in the US ‘could get whacked’ as a result of this, shift and that white collar workers in the US have a right to be scared their jobs as they are displaced by the report argues, more than half the workforce could feel the impact of this change . with its combination of low and high tech, hecames 1 0 paxt of their social reality, a reality constructed (in part) through discourse. In a further discussion of changes in contemporary China, Farr (2002) describes changes in the use and meaning of the expression love you’ among young people in Shanghai. Whereas he says for poople in the West saying ‘I love you’ may mean the boginning of opposite. He says that the verbal expression of love for Shanghainese before the reform era was looked upon with euepicion and suggested that the person who sai thle. Nowadays, hawever, younger people, he says, have a much more positive attitude towards . love you" to cuch other, ulthouy English or Japanese ways of saying this to avoid the embarrassment, still present for some, in in everyday Shang- hainese. Here we have an example of quite different social real being created in different cultures by the use of the samo (or seemingly same) expression. Cameron and of the terms ‘gat this. As they arguo: (2003: 29) in their discussion of the history lesbian’ and ‘queer" provide a furthor example of words urs not tho issue. IC ie in discourve - the use of language in specific contexts — that words acquire meaning, 10 What is discourse analysis? Whenever people argue about words, they are also arguing about yns and values that have clustered around those the course of their history of being used. We cannot ‘ourses) in which words are always embedded. boar in mind that discource chifts and changoa constat th is why arguments about words and thoir meanings are never led onco and for all ii, Discourse and socially situated identities evo. As Geo (2005) argues, the ways wi recognizable who we are and what we are doing always than just language. IL involves a acting and thinking in cer- tain ways, TLalso involves valuing and talking (or reading and writing) in appropriate ways with appropriate ‘props’, at appropriate times, in appropriate places. Princess Diana, for example, knows in the Panorama interview, not only how she is expected to speak in the particular place and at the particular timo, but also how she should dress, how she can use body language we effect that she wants, as well as the values, pated in in her role as mother of her and private roles and identities she had as wife of the Prince of Wales. A given discourse, thus, can involve moro than just the one single identity (Gee 2004) iscourses, then. involve the socially situated identities that we enact and recognize in the different settings that we interact in. Thoy include culture-specific ways of performing and cnlture-spacific ways of recognizing ide ies. Discourses also include the different styles of language that we use to enact and recogn: identities, thaPiseeurse ancbysis characteristic ways of showing emotion, gesturing. dressing and pos- . They also involve particular ways of valuing, thinking, - tening. reading and writing (Gee 20051 iscourse and performance of words, deeds, ‘and places in the here at recognizable as just such a coordir mance here and new what the ‘masters of the dé be forced to recognize as a pos: {Geo 2008: 19) ‘his notion of performance and, in particulat, perform: is taken up by authors such as Butler (1990, 2004), Cameron (1999), and Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003). ‘The notion of performativity derives from spee and the work of the linguictic philosopher Austin. It saying something, we do it (Cameron and Kulick 13). That is, we bring stules uf affairs into ‘what we say and what we do. Examples of this are I promise and [ now pronounce you man and wife. Once | have said T promise | have com ‘a marriage celebrant, says I now pron’ couple have ‘become’ man and wife Butler, Cameron and others talk about doing gender in much the way that Gee talks about discourse as performance. Discourses, then, like the performance of gendered identities, are socially constructed, rather than ‘natural’. People ‘are who they are because of {among other ings) the way thoy talk’ not ‘bocause of who they (already) are’ (Cameron 1998: 144), Social identities are, thus. wot pre-given, but are formed in the use of language and the various other ways we display iv we atv, what ore think, value and fool, ote. Tho way, for example, = s language. what they rap about and how they present all contributes to their performance and rap singer. Thoy may do this in a particular ww York, in another way in a shuw in Quebec, ight club in Seoul. As thoy do boing rap existence, or repeat, their social porsona as a rap Whot is discourse onalysis? iv. Discourse and intertextuality All texts, whether thoy are spoken or w against the background of other texts and thiags other occasions (Lemke 1992}. Texts may more or less’ im| explicitly cite oth allude (6 other pe We thus ‘make sonse of every word, every utterance, or act against the background of (some) other words, utterances, acts of a similar kind’ (Lemke 1999: th other texts, Umberto Eco (1987) provides an interesting discussion o (extuall is chapter ‘Casablanca: Gult movies and intertextual collage’. Eco points out that the film Casablanca was made on a very small budget and in a very short time. As a result its creators were forced to improvise the plot, mixing a little of everything they knew worked in a movie as they went. The result is what Eco describes as an ‘intertextual collage’. or kco. Casablanca has been sn sneressfnl is not, in fact, an instance of a single kind of film genre but a 1g of stereotyped situations that aro drawn from a number of different kinds of film genres. As the film proceeds. he argues. we recognize the film genres that they recall. We also recognize the pl sures wa have experienced when we have watched these kinds of films, ‘Tho first fow ocones of Casablanca, for example, recall film gentes such as the adventure movie, the pal newsreels, war propaganda movies, gangster movies, action movies, spy movies and with the appearanco of Ingrid Borgman, a romance. The postor for this movio suggests a numbar of these film genrns, hnt people who have seen dhe muviy would most likely describe it as a romance, As Brown (1992: 7) cbsorves, the chemistry between its two stare Hume phrey Bogard and Ingrid Bergman ‘was so history’ and dofines Casablamu as players, wet in « world of action, adventure, spies, gangsters and of course, romance. 1,3 Differences between spoken and written discourse ‘Thero aro a number of important differences betwoon spokon and written language which havo implications for discourse analysis. Bibor (1906, 1900) discusses a number of commonly “held views on 13Discourse analysis ae of which are for others, diffarances between spoken and wrillen language, : teuo for some spoken and written genres, but are i. Grammatical intricacy and spoken discourse ‘The first commonly held view is that writing is more suucturelly complex and elaborate than speech. Halliday (1989) argues that speech: ly organized than writing. Spoken discourse. he argues, ¥y_ He presents the notion of grammatical cacy to account for the way in which the relationship between Geuses in spoken discourco can be much mare spread out and with moro complex rolations between them than in writing, yet we manage to keep track of these relations. Th wing extract hy a \dge on a television song compet ins sets of clauses that are in the way that Halliday describes. of the show who came to the truly fabulous. And you know what's that the real, true artiste, the people , who touch poople’s tradictions within them, fou when you first rocked up. You js aura of ‘Don't moze with top in front of us you take wards being what we wana create hero, whi That wuv ut fantastic song for you. You just rocks can't believe they have yot book (Australian Idol Blog 2008) ii, Laxical density in spoken and written discourse g to Halliday tends to be snore Lexival density refers to the or function words, i Writton discourse, however, accor lexically dense than spoken disc ratio of content words to grammatical clause. Content words include nouns and verbs while gram: ‘words include items such as prepusitions, pronouns and tt spoken discourse content words tend to be spread out over a number of clausee rather than being tightly packed into individual clauses which ig more typical of written discourse. The following extract from Brown’s (1992: 9) foreword to the book Casablanca: Script and Legend strates tho higher lexical density that 1s typical of many written 4s. n this extract, there are seven content words in each of the 14 i £ What is diseouiaa analytic? 128. The content wards in this extract ara i wre content words than function werds 8. Thorn ara many s extract: If Casablanco defined true lave for a generation romantics, italso defined the aesthetic possibi ‘generation of fim fovers. go) in he following extract from the sertpt of Casablanca (Koc! 56) 2 woman who hed a brief effair with the star of the film, Ri tower content words per clause than Inthe previous example of wi (on txt. Tha : Yeoune: do you fool wo0 to Thee is also a where actions an Halliday (1988) «: where a language elas to another. Written texts also typically alan typically inelude longer nonn froups than spoken texts, This Toads to situation whore the Infor mation in the toxt is moro tightly packed spread out than in spoken texts. The fal of Gusublacas by Curtiss (1992: 299) Musi tis The Dist wo examples wxt chow long noun groupe which are typical bt mach writtn discourse, The thi example inckudes an example of metaphor. Here, the more ‘expected class) is changed! int nominalization: 7 eT to fower words and loss extract from an analysis Although Casablanca defines Dogey for all time as the existential- Iharacinespite-of-himself, several of his roles just preceding this one (notably High Sierea and The Maltese Falcon} hed propared fans for the misanthropy and selfleeness bo wou ‘embody as Rick Blaine. Bergman (as tlsa Lund) and Henreid (as Victor Laszlo) are hardly incandescent lovers - neither are Ben- man and Bogart, for that mattor — but their turgidity as sexual partners works, intentionally or not. to the film's advantage. This extract also following a noun wi the following illustr: les two examples of qualifiers (Hal are also typical of much wrilten discourse. 10n of this extract, the first highlighted section of 15Discourse analysis (notably Tigh Sierra ond The Maltese Falcon) had praparad his fans for the mi imatic selflessness he would embody as igidity as sexual partners works, intentionally or not, to the film's advantage. Tho next extract, example of the typical groups in spokon discourse. The noun groups, showa in extract, are simpler and loss dense than in the previous example. There Maybe one will come to you as you (TM & © Tumor Entertainment Co. (506) iv. Explicitness in spoken and written discourse ‘A further commonly held view is that writing is more oxpl speech. This depends on the purpose of the absolute. A person can state something di both speaking and writing, depending upon what they want tener or render ta understand, and how direct they wish te be. In the following extract from Casablanca (Koch 1996: 55), Yvonne asks if she see Rick that evening. Rick clearly wishas her ta infar ‘probably Hy has not said this ex means: than not an Yvonne: Rick: see you tonight? Tnever make plans that far ahead. (TM & © Tumer Entertainment Co. (s06)) 16 What is ciserurse analysis? works out what Rick means from the situational context they are in, from hor background knowledge of this context, including what she knows about her relationship with Rick, and the fextual context af what she has said. v. Contextualization in spoken and written discourse Another ou ly held view is that writing is more decontextualized than speoch, This view is based on the perception that speech depends ‘on a shared situation and background for interpretation whereas writing does nul depend ow such u shared context. This is generally true of conversation but is not true of speech and writing in general {Tannen 1982). Spoken genres. such as academic lectnres, for example, do not generally show a high dependence on a shared context, while supplied by the reader and an active role of the reader to enter of the text. ‘The opening lines in the best-sel , BYU's, and BOUR's'. russ 2008: vi. The spontaneous nature of spoken discourse spoken discourse is organized, but it ia organized differently from written discourse. Spoken discourse does, however, contain more half- completed and reformulated utterances than written discourse. This is bocause epoken discourse is often produced spontaneously and wo are able to see the process of its production as someone spoake. to say that written discourse is not at some stage half-comp formulated. It is just that the text we sec (apart from synchronous With spoken discourse, topics can also be changed and speakers 7Discourse analysis each other as they speak, Speakers can ask for clarification and they can correct they have said, Mis- ‘understandings. further, can be cleared up iummediutely, Alco, spoken discourse is able to use intonation, gesture and body language to convey meaning, whereas written discourse is more constrained in that ean interrupt and overlap wit Repetition, hesitation and redundancy in spoken discourse ‘so uses much more repetition, hesitation and redundancy scourse. This is bocause it ie produced in roal tume, with hat they want to say at the same time as they ic of spoken discourse is the use of epeskers are sayin, pauses and " ‘or’ and ‘yon know’, Speakers do jive thom tima to think about what they want to say while they are . They alsu du this to hold on to the ennversation wy aro thinking about what they want to sy, and how they ‘The following extracts from Ui BDC Panorama interviow between Pristwss Diana and Martin Bashi are shown kote ‘The number in brackets indicates the length of the pause in seconds and (.) indicates a micro pauce that is too small to count. Bashir ‘you were happily Diana: er the prossure on ~ on both os a he media was phenomenal (1) and wala proud mon everyday forfour vwooks () and you feoting happy and sharing ¥. ;. A continuum of differences between spoken and ten discourse ‘As McCarthy (2001) argues, thero is no simple, one-dimensional dif foronce between spoken and written discourse. These differeuves aro most usefully soen as being on a scale, or continuum: for example, from texts which are more involved interpersonally such as some casual conversations. to texts which are murs detached such as somo written public notices. 18 Whot ic dieconse anaycic? ‘Some spoken texts may be more im, to be understood unsaid whereas writ aften be more exp for spoken and fragmented th {and leave a lot of what is English at least) may which spoken and written d , ied’ (McCarthy 2001: 94) written discourse, Ist speaking written down, Spenking and wi werlying grammaticn! sys tem but in general they encode meani different ways depending ‘on what they wish to represent. Biber's (1988) corpus-based study into differenées between spoken and written toxts found that there 1s no single absolute difference between speech and writing in English, bt rather dimensions of variation wi Rustic featitres tend to clust all of which varies for different kinds of texts, or genres. Equally, he found that considerable variation occurs even within particular genres, some of which he describes as surprising, and, sometimes, contrery to popular expectation. Biber's work supports this notlon of @ spoken—wrltten con- tinuum. He has shown that there are no absolute differences between ‘ten language in terms of the predominance of certain , but that spoken and written language are, rather, mensional con: th some spoken and written genres having a number of featuras in common wi genres and a number of characteri different. Biber points out how certain in texts that share a similar communicative function. ‘hese clusters. however, are often distributed different rent typos of spoken and written texts. Spoken and written styles, further, may intorminglo ‘with each other in that forms that are typically associated with spoken Janguage may also occur in written language, such as in informal let- tors, email messages and advortising (McCarthy 2001). 1.4 Summary Discourse analysis, then, focuses on knowledge about language and the ¢, phrase and sentence that is needed forDiscourse: at pallemns of organizativn across toxts. It considers what people meant by what they say, how they work out what people mea 5s different views of the world and different jas upon ysis takes us into what Riggenbacl language description that is often ins of language use. It takes us into the soci language choicas. That and helps us understand the ‘rules of the game’ that language users we draw on in their everyday spoken and wi teractions. The ‘many ways in which one could (and can) approach discourse analysis. What oach of these ways reveals is, in part, a result of tho perspective taken in the analysis, and the questions that have been asked. ‘The aim of this book is to provide an introduction to some of these perspectives. 1.5 Discussion questions 1. Think of examples of how people recognize your soci jd identity through your uso of language. For examp! waye dose your use of language reflect your agt social class, gender, ethnic background or nationality? TI wuation you have been in where someone has meant more than what they said in thelr use of language. For ‘example, you may have askel someone a favour and not got a direct answer from them. How would the other person have ‘expected you to work out theit answer to your request? Or perhaps someone wanted to complain to you about somet but thought it wouldn’t be polite ta da this di How did they do this indirectly, yet still feel sure you would get the point of what they are saying? 3. Think of rules of communication that people seem to follow when they aro using language. For example re some of the rules that ing to their teachers? Do they use a typi and typical forms of address (such us ‘Sir’, or 'Miss’) when thoy speak to their teachers? Are there typical topics they talk to their teachers What ic discourse analysis? about, and some topics they do not talk about? Are thora typical ways they start and end a conversa Do same of thase depand on the setting wakes place, such as in a classroom, or in the tea- 4. Think of some of the kinds of spoken or written discourse that ate in, such as lunchtime conversations with your torial discussions with other students, or ‘email messages to friends. What are some of the characteristic ways in which you interact in this kind o jon? How do you typically express yoursalf in these situations? Is the way in which you communicate the same or different in each of thoso situations? Why do you think this is the case? 1.6 Directions for further reading Cameron, D. (2001), Working with Spoken Discourse. Loudon: Suge. Chapter 1. What is discourse and why anal ssuus dat are of equal relevance to the analysta of written di- course. Cameron's first chapter discusses meanings of the term “dis- course’ and goals and purposes in analysing discourse. The later part of this chapter talks about how social reality is ‘discursively con- structed’ as poople discourses) that they have ac: Gelee Murcia, M, and Olshtain, E. (2000), Discourse ond Context in Language Teaching. A Guide for Language Teachers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Proce. Chaptor 1. Introduction to discuur analysis Celce-Murcia and Olshtain’s book discusses discourse analysis and its iportanve for language teaching and learning. The chapter includes a framework for the processing and production of spoken and written discourse, a pedagogical perspective on communicative competence, and an overview of the authors’ discourse approach to language teaching. Jaworski, A. aud Coupland, N. (1998). discourse analysis’, in A. Jaworski and N. Discourse Header. London: Routledge. Taw ‘Coupland’s introdDiscourse analysis of discourse, speech act theory and pragmatics, conversation view of discourse analysi Riggenbach, H. (1999), Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom. Volume 1: ‘The Spoken Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michi- gan Press. Chapter 1. Overview: Discourse analysis in the language classroom. Riggenbach’s hook provides many practical examples of how discourse analysis ean he used in language learning classrooms. The intro- duotory chaptor to hor book outlines the thenretical hackground to her oak, covering a number of key topics in the analysis of spoken and i outst. Riggenbach discusses what diccource analysis means for language teaching in terms of methodology. materials development and syllabus design. 2 Discourse and society ' 2.1 Discourse communites and speech commons 1 2.2 Spaach communes and spoken ond writen dacoune 27 | 2.8 Discourse ond anguode choice » i i 2.4 Dicoure, sca lass and sok! oabotke a | i 25 nn ond gander a | | 2.5 Discourse ond sewolty ” [||| fect cet ie | i 2.8 Oncoute and Weoley “ | 2.9 Concusion ao | i 2.10 Discussion questions Ao. 1 eecegee alll | 2.12 Deco for furor eating so | is chapter discussed the social spoken and written discourse occurs in particular and cultural settings and is used and understood in different ways in different social and cultural settings. ‘This chapter will discuss, in more detail, important aspects of and cultural settings of spoken and written discourso. It th a discussion of the notion of discourse community and the related notion af speach Both of these have an influence on what we say and how wo say it. They also influence the Janguage varity we choose to use as we speak or write in the setting we are in, Other factors which affect of language are the social class we are a member of (or the Jags of the people we are communicating with) as well as tho networks, 23Discourse analysis changing ways) in the area of discourse analysis, and along with dis- course uid is discussed in this chapter. Tho issue of ideology and discourse, a further important tapic in the area of discourse apa- lysis, is also discussed in this chapter. 2.1 Discourse communities and speech communities concept af dls. i (1890) pro a group of poople ae ‘own particular genres. its and a high level of the case of clubs and associations) ‘or they may be more in which people communicate with each othor and exchange will vary according to the group. ‘This might include meetings, newslotters, casual conversal range of other types of written and/or spol uation. That i, the discourse community will have particular ways of communicating with each other and ways of getting things done that have developed through time. ‘There will also be a throshold lovol of expertise in the use of the genres the discourse community uses for its communica tions for someone to be considered a member of Wal wa . {A discourse community isa group of people who share some kind of activity such as members of a club or association wha hava regular meetings. or a group of students who go to classas at the same university. Members of a discourse community have par: ticular ways of communicating with each other. They general have shared goals and may have shared values and beliefs. A pesson is often a member of more than one discourse commu Someone may bi lent, a membor of a comm volunteer organiza ber of a chusch group, exemple. Tho ways in which they communicate in these groups, and the values and beliefs that are most promi- may vary. diswourve departments, for example, may differ in the ways that they do 24 Discourse and sacioty things.and the beliefs and values that they hold, as indeed may other parts of the university A tolephone call centre is an example of @ discourse community. Cameron's (2000) study of telephone call centres in the UK a ‘They were trained not to drag out nor to speed through what they were saying. They were Iso required to provide aufficient feedback to their callers so that the callers knew they had been understood Call centre workers also have common goals, that of providing the service or making the sales the centre is set up for, common ways of sharing information amongst telephone workers, their own particular service call genres, and their own terminology and vovabulary for product or service they are dealing with. There is also a specific of expertise required for successful call centre workers. both in the knowledge of the product or service, and in the way call centre workers deal with their callors. New workers may be hired for a pro- , for example, until it ts clear that they have mot t of performance required to be members of the part centre disconrse community, If thay do not moot this People do, however, have discourse communities. That is. close-knit networks of members such as writers of poetry and their readors, or looso-knit groups of members such as advertising produ fers, consnmers and contributors to online discussion boards. Dis- course communities may also be made up of several overlapping groups of people. People, further, may be {and normally aro} mombers of mors than just the one single discourse comm: may be a call centre operator, a member of a poetry group, a mei school parent teacher group and cont board. A person may also have t another part of the university be a new (or indeed long-standing) 25Discourse analysis forent in each of these parts of the genres that people use and t parts of the discourse commut Discourse communities also interact with wider speech comimu- nities. For exau academic discourse community of studonts ‘and academics also interacts with the wider speech community of the town or city in which the academic institution is luvated (Swales It is for these reasons that some people prefor the term com- ‘ies of practice (Wenger 1998; Barton and Tusting 2005) to the term ‘discourse community’. ‘The notion of discourse community is not, however, as straight- forward a concept as it might seem. There are often discourse com- munities within discourse communities. Swales’ (1998) book Other ices shows this w ing in which he was working at the time at the Univer Michigan. He worked on the top floor of a smal bi The other floors were occupied by tho computing re: am. He looked at the kinds of activities people working floor wore engaged in and the kinds of texts they wrote, He also intorviowed mombers of staff to get an understanding of why they wrote tho kinds of texts they did. He found that people on each floor wrote quite different texts and were an oxample of a discourse cam- munity of their own. Swales proposes the notion of place discourse community to account for this kind of situ Devitt (2004: 42-4) adds to this discussion by proposing three typos of groups of language user: communities, collectives and works. Communities are ‘groups of people who shere substan umounte of time together in common ondrave th as a group af lloctives are groups of jerest, without the fre- quency or "such ns penple who are members of a bee-keoping group, ot voluntary members of cuummu- fice service. Networks are groups of people that aro knit as speech communities with connections being made by one person ‘who knows another person, who knows another persun', such as connections that aro made through wztuil messages sent and received by people who may never have (or never will) met each other. but are participating in a common discourse. 26 Discourse and society 2.2,, Speech communities and spoken and broader than the term discourse com- e discussions of spoken and written in general lingui y group of people that speak the same language, su or German, etc. Sociolinguists, however, profer to use the term speech to refer to people who not only use the ies of a language, but who also have ‘teract with each other (Spolsky 1998). As Spolsky same language, repertoire ot vari the opportuni (1998: 25) puts ‘There is no theoretical limital Jhich isin practice dafined by its sharing a sot roportoire) and a set of norms for using know and use all of these languages or language v: . however, ‘recognise the conditions under which other members of the community believe it is appropriate to use each of them’ (Spolsky 1998: 25). In a city such as Shanghai, for example, most local Chinese will know and use standard Mand: grew up in Shan; when different languages or language varieties. The notion of speech cor munity, then, is broader than that of discourse communities. It includes discourse communities and the repertoire and varieties of languages that membor of the speech community use to ntact with each other. ‘The notion of speech communities is important for the effective use of spoken and written discourse. Sometimes communication may. only succeed when speakers recognize (or believe) that they are part of the samo speech community, The globalization of call centres has brought this particularly into focus. Japan, for example, recently cont some of its call centres offshore inta parts of China whara there are numbers of fluent second language speakers of Japanese. Callers frou Japan did not realize, however, that they were spenking to someone in China. When they use of honorifics, misunders!Discourse analysis ‘Some call centres in China have tried to overcome this problem by ‘employing young Japanese to work in their call centres co that Japa- nese callers will think they are speaking to someone in the same ‘country and, in turn, the same speech community (Aoki 2005). Call sports results w workers to refer to as they take their ci n that callers are speaking to someone from their own speech community, i. Defining a speech community ‘There are a number of factors wh nity. other graphical, ical and ethnic factors, race, age and gender. Meubors ofa speech community may shase a particular set of norms for communication which reflect certain views on linguistic behaviour such as what is the most prestigious variety of the language in the particular cotting, even if not all members of the community actually are able to use this variety. A person, further, may be a member of more than the ony spowch community (as they may be members of more than the one discourse community). They may switch from identifying with one speech community to another, ‘even in the course of a sing terance’ (Wardhaugh 1996: 124) Speakers may not always, however, be full members of a part cular speech community. just as they may not be full members of a discourse communi 1age setting, for example, a speaker may participate, only to a certain degree, in the target speech The degree to which this occurs may be due to factors e speech community, the speech commu- ‘attitudes and expectations towards the place of second language speakers in the speech community or other factors such as educational ‘or occupational opportunitios, or yn9, in the particular speech commun jend on a perton’s degroa of proficiency in the second language and the extont to which they want (or need) to be part of the socond language spooch community. If, for example, 1 am a 1g profnssar for a semester at a Japanese university and have been invited to may not noed a lot of Japanese to survive for am there. I may decide 28 Discourse and society relationship with the Japanese staff that are looking after me and poople I deal with in chops. If I have more complex nce: finding out the room I need to teach in and haw ta order siationery may need to rely on an English-speaking Japanese student or a member .od to mo to holp with this sort of thing. In this case, Lam only a very peripheral member of the local speach . oven though T am surrounded by it. This h: fF the department iber of staff, howe dis: n would be quite Speech communities, further, may be quite separate from each other or they may overlap or intersect with each other. Speakers often have @ repertoire of social identities (see ‘Discourse and identity’ bolow) and spocch community memberships each of which is asso- ciated with particular kinds of verbal and non-verbal expression '986: 357) argues, which speech roy 1987) we are part toire or range of languages, language varieties, and registers we draw on when we participate in the spoken and written discourse of these networks. 2.3. Discourse and language choice Speakers, then, often have a repertoire of social identities and dis-Discourse analysis spoaking to, the social context of the interaction, the topic, function ‘aud gual uf the interaction, social distance betwoen speakers, the formality of the satting or type of interaction and the status of each of the speakers are nguage choice Ghat # person makes 10 communicate with lar group membership. In an (2005) discusses how te ac a way of talk about (very cute) boys to her friend standing what she was saying. Another coined U describe someone who ‘cannot make it’ or is not up to etandard. The expression ‘steady pom pi pi’ (a play on the words for whistle in Mandarin and Hokkien) means someone that is always cuul aad ready. for any situation. One teonager interviewed doscribed the use of homemade slang as ‘a group thing’, saying that people who go around in the same circles will use the same type of slang s0 that others will not understand what they aro saying. As Peter Tan from the National University of Singapore explains these groups ‘mark themselves by the y share, their hairstyle, and of course, ) writer may also be the speaker of a particular lau- bo using that variety to communicate with a wider ‘Shoots & guage variety speech community than just their awn. Tha best seller B Leaves (Truss 2003). for example, is written in standard Bi butis clearly beon a best-seller in the different speech comm Princess Diana {BBC 1995), equally. had more than a singlo speech mind as it was made. It was broadcast worldwide and achieved an audieuce of over 200 million people (Kurzon 1996), well beyond the speech community in which it was originally located. ke most Hollyovood films, had a much broader audience its carly days, market was its main focus. The HBO show Sax and the viewership of different speech communi diough the cast of the show, Carrie, Samantha, , are clearly members af munity, residents of New York City. st the one single speech community. It has the UK and Australia, all of which are 30 Discourse and society 2.4 Discourse, social class and social networks A further factor which influences the use of spoken and written dis- define as may help and its location {Labov 1966). Other factors which may help with social groupings might include re and membership of community organizations (Wardhaugh 1998). A group of speakers may appear to be very social clase membership, however, but differ eonctderahly in tl of language as they interact social networks they belong to and tho spoken and writton genres used by those ac works may be based, for example. on kinship ties. r hood membership, employee el jes. Milroy and Milroy’s (1978) study of social networks in showed social networks to be imp idarity at the level of the individual and his or her everyday contacts Each of these has an impact on how speakers represent themselves to each other in tholr use of spoken and written discourse. As Cameron ick (2003: 11) obsorve, the uso of language, ‘whatover else it "a means whereby people convey wple they ary’, ‘These identilivs, further, ‘constructions. As speakers construct teraction (Holmes 1997), so too do they 2.5 Discourse and gender lysis of gender and discourse looked at the he use uf language aud the bivlugival category of sex. This has now moved to an examination of the ways language is used in relation to the social category, or rather the socially a1Discourse analysis constructed category, of gender. As Weatherall (2002: 102) explains gender ‘is not just a natural and inevitable consequence of one’s Se’ is, rather, ‘pi 16, ongoing work of cveryday, mundane, ‘the product of social practice” (Eckert and ‘As Swann (2002: 47) has pointed out: ‘gender as a social category has come to he seen as highly fluid. or Jess well defined than it once appeared. In line with gender thoory more generally, researchers interested in language and gender have focussed increasingly on plurality and diversity amongst female ‘and male language users, and on gender as performat something that is ‘donc’ far utes, caller Unau a Bed wt Simone do Beauvoir famously said ‘ono is not born, but rathor use of language and other ways of expressing themselves in their interactions with each other. Mostly, this is done unconsciously as we ‘repeat acts’ such ‘as goctures, movement and ways of using language that signify, or “These acts are nat. howowar, natural nur are ley part of the essential attributes of a person. They ae part of what people acquire in their interactions with cach other. In her hack Hangnage and Women’s Place Lakoff (1978) proposed what ahe called ‘women's languege’; that is, a use of language that ie different from ‘men’s language’ or, rather, what she termed ‘neutral language’. This language, she argued, included features such as the use of overly polite forma, the use of que: doclaratives, the avaidance of expletives, a greater use of ivan and euphemisms, the use of more hedges and mitigating devices, indirectness and the use of particular vocabulary items such os ‘adorable,’ “charming” and ‘sweet’ (women’s language) versus ‘great’, s for women, works to keep women in 160 in sockety. These differences, shy argued, wore Ue result of, and reinforced, men's dominance over women. Lakoff’s book led to two separate views of women’s language, the Dieeourze and society approach which sees differenens in the uso of language nv a result of men's domination over w is view focuses on the distribu: women’s language reflects wome and that linguistic gestures of power, if viewed on their own, are an integral part of women’s placement in me of things. Thess gestures, thoy arguo, remind. women, on a daily basis, of their subordinate position in society. ‘rhat Is, they are a way of doing power. ‘Tannen’s (1990) You Just Don’t Understand is an example of the difference approach. Tannen argued that boys and girls live in differ- Mexvnt social and ethic backgrounds might be described as being part of different subcultures. As a consequence boys and girls grow up learihg different ways of using language and. communi other cultural groups (for example, men), Uchida (1992) and Lakoff (1990) in her more recent work, argue that gender, power and subculture are intertwined (Uchida) and insepar- le (Lakoff) and that dominange and difference work together to Janguage and ‘rondo Cameron (1998) der and power are always context-specific and need to he understood in relation to who the person is speaking to, ‘from what position and for what purpoce' (Cameron 1998: 451); that is, what the use of lan- guage moans in terms of the relationship between the speakers in the particular situ ile interaction occurs. We need, then, & view of gender and discourse that looks at how peopla, in particular social and cultural interactions, do gender through their use of language. Many of the conversations in the TV shaw Sex and the Gity aro ‘examples of the way the lead characters, through their usv uf language, do gender. In the following extract, Mirunda asks Carrie why she accepted hor boyfiond’s proposal of mange, In het respans Carrie both enacts and affirms, through her use of language, fered identity, that of a woman who, because she lovos hur buy nid. has to accept his proposal of marriage: 33Discourse analysis: Miranda: Carrie: Because Love hina .. aman you luve kneels in the strost, fand offers you a ring. You say yes. That is what you do. (Change of « Dross, 4: 15) “The discussion of how men and women speak, and what they do as they epeak, has also been extanded to haw people speak about mon for example, compered tho use of the 10 eocial significance of these was writing to a situal woman is more frequently used in written Br spoken British English). Si also found thet whi used a a politeness markor itt formal settings (as tho time Lakoff was writing), nowadays, In used to trivialize and patronize. ‘As Holmes (2004: 156) argues, language choices ‘ments of who's in charge and ‘whose values will prevail (z000) study uf the usc of disparaging languaye and sexual Hiating formulae by male membors of a cricket club tw talk about women provides an example uf this. Richardson found, as did '999} in her study of talk between fraternity brothors in the men in her study used their talk, and thy taditional * discourse of gossip, to create solidarity aé 4 group. and to ity. football referues’ use of language teams shows a similar example of the 30 of language ti ‘and to confirm masculine identity. She talks about sporting asa male category where values such es power and ‘aggressiveness are highly valued, like in a form of combat. She found speed, loud talk and chouting to be ways in which these values were expressed in the male referee's language. She also found the male referees used fast continuous talk in a way that never occurred in jruien's football matchos. The following extract, by a male referee, is ‘extract onder talk is in italics and shouting ‘presents a pause of loss than a second, igo on lade (.) keep going kop going keep going OH KEKP GOING LADS KSEP GOING LADS JUST INSIDE CARRY ON () INSIDE (). KEEP GOING () (whistle blow: ay lads (.) keep going {.) right “women o1 construct (Moan 2001: 795) Discourse and socioly players with address terms such of showing group membershi female referees used addres Davies’ (2003a) study of classrout les of gendered stories they ive way, forming learni th each other as they di ‘The boys, on the other hand, had to choose whether thoy would join in tho 'm: of the young ‘and so be ostracized from the group. The boys used the word ‘gay’, for example, lo defaue boys they did not see as being part of the group (whether they were gay or not) and as a way of doing male “macho gender’. Boys who wanted to be part of the ir behaviour so the term ‘gay’ would not be directed workers in the US provides a furthor example of how speakers create gendered identities through their use of language. She found many of the workers jar to Lakolt's w phone. Not all of sox workers in Ithough this was the persona they p sre they all fomale. One was a male Mexican American who took pride in being able to ‘replicate’ Asian, Latina and were projecting, nor ‘women’s personas though his use of accent ity and choice of vocabulary. The workers, thus, used ‘gendered Gender, ther that a person does’ (Cameron 2005a: 49). Gender {and in tun other identities) is not a result of who people (already) are but a result of, among other things, the way they talk and what they da ‘As Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2003: 4) argue: gender dosen't just ly produend, reproduced, lenge systems of gender relations and privilege. ‘Sex and the ity provides many examples of the lead characters doing gender of a cortain kind (among other things, indype: euocossful professional Now York City womeu of a certain social class) not only in the way they talk, but also in the way 35Discourse analysis jwy dross, and the way they behowe as they speak to each other, their . What to some puuple, then, may soem natueal ions is a result of what Butler (1990- 33) calls ‘a set of repeated acts’ and a ‘repeated stylisation of the body’. ‘These gendered. “reaffirmed and publicly displayed by ropeatedly is’ (Cameron 1999: 444) in accordance with constructed cultural norms which define then is a complex construction. Al Tanguage and discourse, as well as aspects of nonverbal Kinds of behaviour are involved in doing gondor (Butlar 2004). Con further, interacts with other factors such as social class and ethnict As Holmes observes: sgoaler is spect which some contexts one’s profossional axpertisa, one's ethnic ident one's gender. ar one’s age than (Holmes 1997: 9) jonship betwoon associated in a pa ways of speaking pointing to, or indexing a particular gender in the samo way that particular ways of speaking may point to, or index, a poreon’s social class or ethnic identity (Cameron and Kulick 200: Tn some cases, a porson’s different identities may he ditticult to separate, As Camaron and Kulick (2003: 58) paint ‘The actual balance betweon them is not determined in advanco by some gonoral principle, but has to he negotiated in specific situa- tions. since meaning is not only in the lang but also in the context where language is usod by particular speakers for particular purposes. A person, Uva, will have a multiplicity of identitios or personae (Eckert 2002) which may be at play, all at the same time, at different levels of prominence. They may not all be equally salient at (Gunderland and Litesseliti 2002). Rathor, one or murs ul iden. tities may be foregrounded at different points in time and for different 36 Discourse and society (conscious or unconscious) reasons. Cameron's (2000) study of the use of language in tolephone call centres in the UK is an example of this. Here there is a mix of both professional and gendered identities Cameron talks about a process of styling the worker where male and fomale workers aro trained to uco what is popularly thought of as a feminine communication style and expressive intonation to pr rapport and to establish empathy chcklists as they havo boen given is prodi Is to ensure the tra particular gendered style of speech, meaning: the meanings it conveys in one context are not necessarily the same ones it cam veys in another, and it may also acquire new meanings overtime. {Cameron and Kulick 2003: 57) People, fu ‘do perform gender differe: ferent contents, and do sometimes behave in ways we woul associate with the “other” gender’ (Cameron 1999: 445) such as the case of the workers in Gameron’s call contre study and the telephone sex workers in Hall's (1995) study 2.6 Discourse and sexuality nship between language and sexus uf gender aud discourse by addi le gender is something that is soci a much more unconscious basis. based is, a person's intimate desire for conn i conscious control (Cameron and Kul the same way as a personal ad ons gay website te guided by the gay man's desi for intimate with another man. So while Carrie and her friends’ con- versctions index their gender, it is their unconscious desire that motivates their dosire for intimate connections with mon, and hot- erosexual men in general, ‘A person may, however, porform e cortain identity in thoir con- ‘and har friends da in Sex and the City, where thisulated gendered performance in the film Roberts’ future boyfriend. Closer when he has on! Masquerading as a heterosexual womvar of) a woman having cybersex in an Internet chat room. The charactor at the other end of the line, played by Clive Owen, believes Jude Law's performance to the extent that lis makes a date to meet his onlinu sux object the next day, with the view of going to hotel and having sex with ‘her’ scussions of language and sexuality, then, take us beyond discussions of language and gender and into the world of language and desire. These desires. further: are not simply private, internal phenomena but are produveal ane ‘expressed ~ oF not oxpressod = interaction, using shared and conventionalised linguistic resources. (Cameron sud Kulick 2002: 125) Carrie and ber friends do ju Sox and the City. The meanings that they express are not just the result of their intentions, but are shaped by forces they “have no conscious awareness of, let alone willed control over’ (Cameron and Kulick 2003; 125). The woman at the bar in Casablanca is driven in the same way for n with Rick, as Carrie and her friends are im Uh jen they meet throughout the show. Thus, whereas gendered iden- .ducted (and capable of being simulated or, Indeed, faked as we Itave seen abov' though these desires may be display (and regularly repeated) ways (Cameron and Kuli 2.7. Discourse and identity ber of identities, each of which ts more ‘A person may hav: ways in which peuple di they use language and the way they interact with peoy tities are. not natural. however. They are constructed, In large part, through the use of discourse. Ident something that is fixed and remains the same throughout a per- son's life. It'1s something that is constantly wustructed and re- constructed as people interact with each other. Part of having & 38 Diccourse ond caciiy sartain idontity i that it is recognized by other people. identity. us, is a two-way co i ‘The eailiest studies rough language, or rather pri y forged. ives off” about themself, and in turn, y, depends very much on the context, occasion and pur- pose of the discourse. It also depends on the ‘space’ and ‘placo' of the interaction (Blommaert 2005). Cameron (1999) gives an example of this, inher discusston of how a group of male US college students construct heterosexual masculinity through the talk that they engage in while watching TV in their college dorm. Richardson (2000) shows some- done by others, not by lentity may only be temporary. Equally jat every identity will have the same range or scape’ (Blommaart 2005: 211) nor be the same across time and physical space. As Blom- macrt says, people speak both in and from a place. Place, he argues ‘defines people, both in their eyes and in the eyes of others’ (Rlom- wert 2005: 223) ax well as atuibutes cert interac- ions. People can (end do) he argues, shift places ‘frequently and dolicately. and each timo. in very minimal ways. express different as cxplored the issuca of language and identity in online chat enviror place and space. With a focus on : use words and Images to estal their fantasies and their desires in this particular setting, She doos an 39Disco only of both the words and the images that they use to create their In their online environment, the cybergirls interacted with ‘as well as various other symbols such as jual characters which express a certain th their online identities. One of her par- particular persona: Violeta: 'd have whole ty rying to trick sor ‘Thomas found that ‘the girls who gain and exercise power in their online worlds are those who know how to use and manipulate words, fmages and technology’ (Thuuias 2004: 1159). Some of what thoy did 10 she found refiected the kind of ‘leamed social accomplish- that researchers in the area of language and gender have ey did, however, reflected fantasies they t themselves and their desired personae, the online medium em a safe and private place tw establish these fantasized-about .¢ that people establish online, then, provide an ig example of how people create identities through of language (and other visual devices) that separate and distinct from their offline ident are part of the ongoing process of establ “in times} to be. It is for this reason that rathor than online identity, Some people communicating onl indeed, chongo oscential characteristics about thamselves (such as their ago, ethnicity, race or physical appearance) in order to present an Adentity online Uiat will be more appealing to the audience they are ‘wanting to communicate with. A Taiwanese user of online chat rooms in Tsang’s (ZUUv) study, for example, found lie hed more success in ff he said he was Caucasian, rather i. Kdentity and casual conversation Many of the interactions in Sex and the City are examples of the use of discourse to create, express and establish social (and other) identities. ‘A.common way in which the characters in tho show do this is through 40 Discourse and society thoir use of the gonro casual conversation. As Figgins and Slade (1997: 6) argue: Eggins and Slade argue that people do not engage in casual con- versations just to ‘kill time’, but rather to negotiate social identities as well as to negotiate, clarify and extend interpersonal relations. As they put Aieguises the sig- jeves ag interactants enact and ‘(Bggins and Slade 1997: 16) Thoy describe this ao the contrat paradox of casual conversation. As they argue, casual conversation is the type of talk in which people tel auust relaxed, mnost spontaueous aud must Uerselves, * through and they assert autonomy ‘through the and Slade 1997: 16), the frequency with which they come into contact gree of involvement they have with each other, and their sense of a 1s for each other. In the case of Sex and the City, each of the four female characters knows each other extremely well, Although thoy are the best of frionds, they aro each quite difforent and from quite diverse backgrounds. As they most together, they share their experiences and negotiate their understandings of (among other , love, men and 20x. Ao Carrio and hor friende talk, thoy thamsalves in a way which signifies (their view of desirable Western women, of a certain social class, social setting through their uso of tho genre casual convoreation. intext of the Sex and the ig the identities that aro alDiscouree analysis boing expressed and nogotiated in many of the conversations. What to some people may seem na their interactions is a result of But- 's (2004) ‘aots of repeated acts’ and ‘repeated sty! the acts that they repeatedly perform which reaffirm and ple in particular ways. Identity, thus, 1s a joint, two-way production. We may do this in a more or lesa active way (Sunderland anid Li 2002) such as when we unconsciously perform a particular inducted identity, such as Carrie and her friends do in Sex and the City, or consciously, as the boys who wanted to be part of the group did in Davies’ (2003a) study of storytelling events. not just a matter of using language ina way that lentity. It is rather a socially-constructed self that co-constmet and reconstruct in thei s leads to different ways of doing tuations. A person’s identity then: different people in is not something fixed, stable and unitary that they acquire early in if aud puesone forovar afterwards. Rather identity is sbifting and ple, something people are continually constr: reconstructing in their encountore with each othor in tho world. (Cameron 2001: 170) {ed experience’ in which we ‘define whe we aro by the way we experience onr selves ... as well as by the ways we and others reify our selves’ (Wenger 1998: 149). Identities are not fixed, but constantly being reconstructed and negotiated through the ways 2002}. Our cipation in particular communities of practice. Thoco identities, ther, aze based on shard sels of valnes, agreed-upon cultural understandings and the ideologies which underlie our use of spoken and written discourse. ii, Identity and written academic discourse Identity is as much written discourse as it is in spoken that ia often procontod to students: impersonal discourse. Students are Discourse and society told, he says. ‘to leave their personalities at the door’ when they write and not uce personal pronouns such as ‘I’ which show what is being said is the student's view or place in things. As Hyland (2002c: 352) argues, ‘almost everything we write says somothing about us and tho sort of relationship that we want to sat up with our readers’. Indeed, one of the ways that expert academic writers da this, in some academic ne at Hoc. i through tho use ofthe prone however, something that is aflen often complicated by their ficld of study and find it diff the voice of a novice academic writer, and in their second language. Hin jes, a0 they cam help students deal with the issue of n their second language wri Prince (2000) carried out a study whtich examined just Hor interest wae fh the ways im which socond language # might be influenced (or not) by their experience of having written a tosis in their first language and culture. She looked at the experiences of a group of Chinese and Polish students, all of whom had written a thosis in their first language prior to writing in English. She found a major theme that emerged in her study was whether the stu dents had to give up, or change, thei . fiercely fought to retain her pers mut in tho end found she had to give their thesis was not dramatically different from how they had done this in Chinese. Notwithstanding, all of Prince’s students talked about the iden- a non-English writer’ that they had to deal with. Cadman (1997) also discusses this issue, arguing that the difficulty many sec- ond language students have with their writing goes far beyond being a non-English writer. A Chinese student in Cadman’s study had exactly the saine experience with her writing that Fox (1994) discusses. She found in her now writing environment that none of tho exportise she brought with her was valued and she had no links with her past life that could help her succeed in the new academic setting. 43Diuwouroe enaiysic argues that learning to sucooed in Western, ist. a matter of language, but knowing the .¢ particular spoken and judents may choose to become part of y Fear a lose of cu the new academic cul present lst a tnd of her thesis to reveal her findings, writing her thesis ‘as a detec- tive novel’. as she described it, Revealing her findings any suonez, she folt, killed the excitement of the reading. She wanted to write a thesi ish, She found, however, that she needed to revise her thesis so it would more closely fit the readers of her text, the people that had been ‘order to pass, She still asked at the end, however: For what reason [ have tu sad the Blteen pages if I alroady know the answer? (rinco 2002: 76) Wn, as much as she could, the underlying values and nderlay the piece of writing that she was producing, a .¢ field of onginooring, weitten in an Eu Her view of research was that it was something be presented es such, like the revealing of ‘closer and closer” progression towards en answer mystery, 2000: 78) ‘As Casanave (2002: 23) argues i learning to belong to a community of practice can take time and a great deal of effort, It can he filled with tensions and conflict. As she points out: Newcomers inevitably feel the foreignness of unfam! y what Iona experienced as she struggled to write her na found, as do many student writers, that the discourses ausd practices of the discipline in which sho was writing was vory diffe from what she had brought from her home culture and, unless she a4 Discourse and society revised her writing, would undermine her relationship with her roadors (Hyland 20068). spoken and written genres are not just io catogotios but ‘among the vory processes by which dominant ideologies are reproduced, transmitted ion of a linguistic model, the performance of a p significant process. There are a number uf ways be explored may start by looking at textual features in the text and move from there to explanat the analysis. This may ing the text to texts, and to readers’ end speakers’ own experiences and beliefs (Clark 1995) One aspect that framing (Gee 2004: tent of the text is presented, and the sort writer, or speaker, is ind of analysis is the . how the con- angle or perspective the ‘ng. Closely related to framing is the notion of what concopts and isoues aro omphaci ‘well as what concepts or issues are played down or hackgrounced (Huckin 1997] in the text, The following scene from Sex and the Ci ‘an oxample of thie, Carrie had just discovered an engagement ring in her hoyfriend, Aiden’s, avernight bag, She then went into the kitchen nd. She is telling ler friewds about cident 1g angrged! ew’ up. Usa the ring and hese up. That's not 2 That's my reaction to marziage. What do you think you might do if he asks? ‘Tray une 1 got myuyedd uftor Samantha: How long before you separated’ 45Discourse anolyaia Cherloite: Wo'rn together now and that’s what matters, When i ight you just know. Samantha: Carrie donsn't know. Carrie: Care throw wp. Samantha: So it might nat he right (lust Say Yes, 4: 12) A koy cultural value is foregrounded in this conversation: if a man asks ‘a woman ta marry him she should ‘Just say yes’ (the title of the opi- sude). Other values are backgroundod, or rather omitted, such as Car- tic's views on Aiden’s occupation hackground and social class, fhe show already knows this (not presupposition is should give a direct response. This is very much an Uased assumption, Saville-Troike (2003), far example. dis riage proposals in Japanese showing that, in Japanese, a marriage proposal is not always directly stated and, fs not always directly responded to, An example of this is when the Japanese Crown Prince Naruhito proposed to Itis bride-to-be Masako (on a hunting trip). Masako did not acvept he proposal immediately three months to give a reply. When she did she sald. "Wi and ‘If I can be of any help to you, I will bumbly accept’. The Crown. Fringe replied ‘I will protoct you throughwsut you (Asahi News is the view uxprossed in the iage being based (among other things) in ture-specific enon in China, for example, where marriage was, unt business, arranged by parents in accordance will social archies, as Zhang in her (1986) book Love Must Not be Forgotten says. part of a mind-set passed down from feudal times. Arranged marriages {as opposed ta “love marriages’) are ingly popular on Japan. In earlier times. in Japan, as in China, mazriage was a community- ccontred rather than a persan-contred matter. Even today there is a ‘Arranged Marriages Association in Japan which promotes the benefits of this kind of marriage (Davios and Ikeno 2002). Recontly, however, there has been a romantic revolution int China (Farrer 2002) with young, urban people now expecting to be able to choose their own marriage partiiors and to marry far love. The award- Discourse and society winning movie House of Flying Daggers hy the Chinese filmmaker Zheng Vimow (2008), for exatnple, isa glorification of romantic love and desire, telling the story of three people whe sacrifice everything for love, The overlying theme of this film suggests a change ia Use sual in Bokert’s (2002: nance of gender semiotic of desiro in prosent day Chinose soci 109) words, "the most powerful force in the m: presupposition underlying the Sex and the City con Propose to the woman, not lent as Carrie and her friends are, ‘aman (or that the want from life, most power in the vullisr way round. a single reading of Sex and the City. People from other cultures and with different social, cultural and pi points of viow will, of course, read Sex and the City in quite different ‘ways from how | have read it here. For some people, a show such as ideologies. For Ap us unpack some of inguage and what the text is mind us of the importance of considering ying the use of Iso helps well as helping us unpack the ideol everyday genres (Johns forthcomin An analysis of this kind, then, takes us beyond the level of description to a deeper understanding of toxts and provides, as far as might be possible. some kind of explanation of why a text might be as it ic and whot it is aiming to do. It looks at the relationship between language, social norms and values and aims to describe, intorpret and explain this relationship, In doing so, it aims to provide a way of ox- longing, some of the hidden and ‘out of sight’ detlie tho use of spoken and ical thrust of seemingly ordinary, a7Discourse onalysis 2.9 Conclusion ‘This chupter has looked at discourse analysis from a number of social and other perspectives. It has introduced several notions that are important for discussions of language from a discourse peropective. It haa also afmed to sliow how some nf these notions have changed since they wero first introduced (such as language and gender and language and identity) and how these notions are currently viewor ‘sions of the use of spoken and written discourse, The chapter wiiich follows looks at discourse from a pragmatics perspective and provides further detail on how language daos what it does, and means more than it says, in the context of our day-to-day communications. 2.10 Discussion questions 1. What discourse communities are you a mombor off Du any of these communities overlap? How similar, or different, is your use af language in each these communities? Complete Ue chart below as you carry out your discussion. Diseourse community | Use of language | py 2. What factors influence the way you ase language when you speak? For example, is your use of language infuenced by your ethnic identity, your level (or kind) of education, your age, your gender or your ucvupation? How do yuu think your use of language reflects these sorts of categories? Complete the chart helow as you carry out your discussiut. Factor Use of language Ethnic identity Education Age 48 a Discourse ond saciaty (Gender Gccupation Other identity Think of ways in which your identity has been constructed through ways of doing things and ways of belonging to a group. Yon may lank at yaur identity ag 2 shdent in_your class, or as a momber of another social group that you belong to, Complete the chart helow. Group Ways of belonging [Ways of doing things Data analysis projects Think of ways in which how your use of language reflects the identity you have of yourself Tape-record a conversation hetween yon and someone else. Analyse yonr conversation and identify espects of the conversation which you think reflect the way you are presenting yourself to the other per- son, These might, for example, include the use of particular vocabulary, the use of a particular voice quality, or through the way which yon express a particnlar point of view. Can you think of situations in which the way/s you intoract is infllienced by your gender? Tape-recard a conversation between you and someone else where you think this is rele- vant. Analyse your conversation and identify aspects of the conversation which yon think reflect your ‘gendered iden- tity’. This might. for example. be through the use of a parti- cular voice quelity, or the ways in which you intoract linguistically with the person you are speaking to. ‘Think of a situation where your gender is less important than, other “factors in the way you interact. Tape-record a a9Discourse analysis conversation between you and someone else where you think this is relevant Analyse your conversation and identify aspouls of the conversation which you think rofloct your most prominent identity in the conversation. 4, Choose a spoken or written text which you think reflects cortain stereotyped (or otherwise) views of haw penple interact and their views on certain issues, Analyse the text avouriing to the following categories: foregrounding backgrounding presuppositions agency ‘To what extent do you think the text reflects cortain pre- supposition and ideologies? 2.12. Directions for further reading Borg, E. (2003), ‘Key concepts in KL: Discourse community’, ELT Journal, 57, (4), 398-400. In this article Borg provides an accessible introduction to the notion of discourse community. He suggests ways in which the notion of dis- ‘course community is a useful one for language teachers, especially for people working in the area of English for specific purposes. Cameron, U. (2001), Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage. Chuptcx 11. Identity, difference and power: lovuling sucial lations in talk, ‘This chapter of Cameron's book discusses identity and power in dis course. She focuses on the ides of ‘socially constructed selves’ and the ‘ways in which people continually construct and reconstruct their identity through their encounters with other people and Weir use off discourse, Cameron also discusses the notion of ‘co-constructed selves’, pointing ant that communication. and indeed identity con- struction, is a two-way process. It involves not only the construction of a particular identity, but also the recognition of that identity by others. Eckort, P, and McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003), Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge Universily Press. ‘While largely about language and gender, this book starts from a very broad base, elaborating on many of the social aspects of spoken and written discourse al liave been presented in this chapter. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet discuss in detail the social constructionist view of 50 Dikccrunin and cacioty disconran: that is, the way in which what we say and do contributes to Ute construction of particular (in this case gendered) identities. Sunderland, J. and Titosseliti, 1. (002), ‘Gender identity and dis- course analysis: Theoretical and empirical considerations.’ in J. ‘Sunderland and L. Litosseliti (eds), Gender Idemity and Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.1-29. This chapter is a clear and accessible introduction to the topics of discourse and identity and discourse and gondor. Sunderland and Litosseliti discuss identity as something that is hoth multiple and fhuid and how identities are both realized and constructed as people ‘do identity work’ in their use of spoken and written discourse 517 22 tagger coe 33 | ya yee at nd dhe ss | 9.4 The cooperative principle ond dhecoures an 2. Hoang te oop pl a 34 Comal pogntccnd cue os 97 coment plz an dco 7 2. foe eon horse n 29 fond psn eu ves ™ 10 Pelton ger % 2.11 Footvamney ” 3.12 Politeness and cross-cultural proqmatic failure 7R 919 Conta 7 214 ale geet m 218 bm etna oe wo a 3.16 Dwections for futher reading ‘This chapter presents an overview of reseamch in the area of pragmatics terested In looking al language from 2 ;p betweon language nthe area of pragmatics as well as in the area Is0 looks at ays in whi pple typically erform speech acts (suck as apologi 1g, etc.) in spoken End watton discourse. The chapter discusses the reason. perform a speech act in a particular way such as, for ex of politeness. The ways in whtch poople perfor spy cultures is also discussed as well as what happens when people do not 52 Discourse and pragmatics follow culture-specific expectations for performing particular speech acts. 3.1 What is pragmatics? tudy of meaning in rel speaking or writing, situational and textual context. It alsa includes background knowledge context; that is, what people know about each other and about the world. Pragmatics assumes that when people communicate with each other they normally follaw some kind of co-operal of how they ways in whi What may be ac ‘The study of this use of language across cultures is called crass cultaral pragmatics ‘The rolationship between linguistic form and cor 1s of central interest in the area of pragmatics and, ‘axgues, is Lighly relevant to the field of discourse analysi know the communicative fun terance, that is, what ‘doing’ in order to assign a discourse I the utterance overall discourse. For examp! somecne says ‘The bus was late,” they may be com bus service {and so we label the stage of the cnnvorsation ‘comp! low up to a: ion ‘explanation’) or they ‘ay be doing something else. We alsa need to know what this meaning in order to understand. at a broader level, what people typically say and do as they porform particular gonros in particular social and cul tural settings. 3.2 Language, context and discourse is being said. This includes the the social context and the mental worlds and roles of 53Diese analysis the people involved in the interaction. Each of these impacts an what we say and how other people interpret what we say in spoken and written discourse. between two peo} re-typed on the letterhead of a law firm and addressed toa jon of ‘a plece of logal ferent from the way in which it would have been read by the stud professor (Freedman 1969). The linguistic context, in terms of hhas been said and what is yot to be said in the discoutse, also has an impact on the intended meaning and how someone may interpret this meaning in spoken and written discourse. ‘There are, then, a number of key aspects of context that are cru- cial to the production and interpretation of discourse. ‘These are the situational contest in torms of what people ‘know about what they can see around them’, the background knowledge context in terms of what people ‘know about each other and the world’ and the co-textual context in terms of what people ‘know about what they have been saying’ (Cut ). Background knowledge context includes cultural knowledge and interpersonal knowledge. That |, what they know about various they know about each 1¢ 2002) and what they know about tho norms and expe particular dis- course community in w is taking place. Cor textual knowledge also understandings that are relevant to the particular commun (Colco- Murcia and Olchtain 2000). ‘As Thomas (1995: 2: ing Discourse and pragmatics invalves social, psychological and cognitive factors that are relevant to the production and interpretation of what a speaker (or writer) s and what a hearer (or reader) undarstands by what is 1995). Discourse, then, ‘Two influential works i area of discourse analys Words and Svacle's ad Searle argued that iguago is used t refer to the truth or ness of particular statements. Their work appeared at logical positivism was the prevailing view in the philosophy uf lau- cal posi i tested for truth or falsity, itis basically meaningless. Austin and Searle observed that there are many things that we say which cannot meet these kinds of truth con ing, They argued that seme way that we perform physical acts, we also perform acts hy using language. That is, we use language to give orders, to make to give wamings or to give advice; in other words, to do that go beyond the literal what we say. the relationship between meaning, ar propositional content, of what someone eaye the person intends by what they say. Thus. if someone says in here’ they are not only referring to the temperatura, they ig samaone tn da something, such as turn on tho aie conditioning. What we say, thon, often hos both a literal meaning and an illocutionary moaning (or illocutionary force}; tha ing which goes heyond what someone, in a literal sanse, has Austin argued that there are Urey kinds of act which occur with ‘everything we say. Those are the locutionary act, the ilo ‘and the perlocutionary act. The locutionary a ng of the actual words (such as * ‘on the thoughts or actions of the othor purus getting up and turning on the air conditioning). 55Discourse analysis The following example on 4 bus illustrates this. Clearly the bus driver is doing more than moking a statoment. He is also telling the hays ta move, The Incutionary act. in this case, is the driver saying he start the bus with peuple stant we doorway, the illocu- tionary act is an order and the perlocutionary act is the boys moving inside the bus: Bus driver: This bus won't move until you boys move in out of the doorway. It is not always easy, however, to identify the illocutionary force of what someone says, as it may also depend on the stage in the dis- course, as well as the social context, in which the person is speaking. ‘OK’ for example may ba an expression of agreement to what someone ‘has just said, it may also be a ‘continuer’ in a conversation low: ion from the {Flowerdew 1990). nary force, further, might he spread over more than ance. The oxample bolow, where the sales request is spread cheese whopper with cheese, ‘Whopper juntor with ol Tang B: Yes. Thank you. and bacon, a also not unusual for what someone says to have moro than a single }cutionary foros. For example. ‘What are you doing tonight?” might both a question and at jon, A person might roply ‘ haven't finished my homework’ treating tho utterance as both a ques they decide not to accept. They may equally i dy you feel like doing?” providing an answer to the question but this time accepting the (as yet unspoken) invitation. 56 Discourse and proyematies irect and indirect speech acts Sometimes when we speak we do mean exactly what we say. The lowing example from the BRC Panarama interview with Princoce jana is an example of this. Here. the interviewar asks Princoss Diana if sho allowed her friends to talk to the author of her biography, ‘Andrew Morton: Bask Did you allow your frlends, your close friends, to speak to Andrew Morton? Disna: Yost did. Yes I did. (BBC 1995) Often we da, how jend something that what we say. For exa party is ‘to bring a ‘someone to ask them to come to their home for asked says ‘Can I bring anything?” in to bring wine (or in come eountriv vu host) with them to the dinner. ‘The example above of ‘Can [have a Whopper with egg and Lavon ...° also fllustrates this. Hore, tho customer is not asking about their ability to buy a hamburger ~ thi but making a sales request. where ‘can’ used permission. ug such as flowers for the sales person's ability to serve the customer. The second utterance is an acc of the offer and a sales request. not a question about al permission: A Can I take your order now please? B: Can T have nine nuggets and chips with sweet and sour samen and a can of Pepsi thanks? In the following example # declarative form. the form most closely associated with making statements, is used to make a request: A Til have two boneless breast pieces, original recipe, half « dozen nuggets, 2 small cht ‘extra salt thanks, B Any cold drinks of anything else with the order? 57Discourse onalysis Indirect speech acts are often difficnlt for second tanguage lear nate to recognize as they may not necessarily know thet in English ‘This room's a real mess’ might he a request for someone to help tidy up the room, or an order to tidy up the room. They also may uot walize that an expression such 2 ‘Would you mind helping me move the not asking about whether someone would mind doing for someone to do something, or ofa formal written wedding 1 i email message. Also aces tuust by appr priate for the use of the speech act. That is, someone must be getting married. The person who uses the speech act must be the appropriate pérzon to uso it in the particular context — such as the bride or groom's fami Austin argued that and complet ‘most circumstances) have the tions for the speech act to ‘must be carried achieved and will ‘misfire’. If the third of these conditions docs not then the procedure will be ‘abusod.” Rules versus principles Searle took Anstin's work further by arguing thet the tions of an uttorance are ‘constitutive rules". The something that (or wrang) ar be Austin’s view —_but something which make up and define the act itself. That is, they are rules that need to be fol work. They thus, in Soar act. In his view, the pragm: ic use of language is rule governed and 58 Discourse and pragmatics these rules can be precisely stated. He then attempted to classify sposch acts into groups according to chared sets of conditions. Ho found this impossible to do, however, and proposed instead a set of criteria that might be used for classifying specch acts. The must portant of theco aro tho purpose of the utterances (in the senso of what we want the other person to do}, the ‘direction of fit’ between the words we usc and what wo want the other person to do, and the amount of descriptions of constrained by iy extremoly difficult to dovico rulos factorily account for the complexity of spesch act Uehuviour, She prosonts five basic differences between rules and principles to support her argument. The first of these is that rules are ‘all or nothing’. whereas principles are ‘more or less’. That is, rules are ‘yoo/no’ in their application whereas principles can be applied par- Lally: "Thus, you ca speak extremely clearly, raluer han simply to define a speech act whereas ‘urthor, whereas rules are defi- they describe what is more ar to be the case, rather than something which either does or does not apply. Finally Thomas argues that rules are arbitrary, whereas principles are ‘motivated’. That is. people follow them for @ reason, or purpose, to achieve a particular go If, for example, someone apologizes for something (in English) there is the assumption thet they were responsible for what has been dono (or in a position to represent this on someone else's behalf), have actually said ‘I'm sorry’, aro sincere in what they say and will do as a cace of more or lees, rather often moro ritual thanDiscourse onatysis speech act performance, rather than a mule-hased one, thus, describes what poople often do, or aro most likely to do, when they apologize, rather than what they ‘must’ do, ‘The analysis of speech acts then needs to take avout that wo are often doaling with approximati discrete categories (Flowerdew 1990) take account of physical and soc not haged on words ara of speech act theory wes an important stop forward towards undorstanding ‘unspoken’ aspects of what people mean by what they say. Speech act theory has also had a major impact ‘on second and forei ‘The notion of “functions” in language teac speech act. Work in the area of cross-cultural pragmatics, discussed Iter in this chapter, is alse st of speech act theory. iv. Presupposition and discourse the area of speech act theory end prag- nt refers to the t between language users 5 of id. This may roma from sources such as books, te through perso experiences with the world. A speaker says something based on their assumption (or presupposition) of what the hearer is likely to ‘knox and what they will infer from what they say. Two main kinds of preeuppos pragmatics: conventional presupposition and pragmatic presuppos tion. Conventional presuppositions are less context-dependent ly linked to particule: forms, For example ‘Would you like some coffee?’ suggests the coffoo is alroady propared whereas ‘Would you like anything to drink?" does nat suggest a drink has already been prepared (Lo Gastro 2003). Pragmatic presuppositions, however. are context-dependent and atico from the use of en utterance in a particular context, The full ‘example from the website of the television programme Big Brot lustrates this: is presuppusit that is assumed to Diseawurse and pragmatics ‘This moming all the housemates are already awake and out of bod. ‘Tho girls aro in tho bathroom and the boys are eating brea the backyard. Ryan offers some bread to the bieds. Pau ‘Fryzie, You're nat allowed." Tha boys talk about birde. ‘Crows, are like weak,’ Ryan says. He corrects himself: ‘Not like the foathall team, they rock. I mean the bird." (Exact courtesy Big Brother Series 4 websit Endemol Southern Star Ply Li ing about the birds and were is no double meaning in what he says. Tho following oxample in the dolicatesson section of a super: ‘market works in the same way. The customers know they need to take a ticket fr icket machine and wait their turh to be served. The person with the ticket with ‘2’ on it is the next person to be served. B Amplicates what A has said as an otfer of service to them (alone). A: ‘Customer number two! R Ab..... could I have 250 grams of the honay smoked ham please? ‘These are examples of pragmatic presuppositions based on a shared knowledge of the: wurld, jen disc jerstanding to us in terms ig Brother mean by what they presuppose a person wi of what we mean by what we say. Ryan does this in the example, as does the sales person in the delicatessen se supermarket. \deed because people make this assum; discourse (normally) proceeds as smoothly as it doos. 3.4. The co-operative principle and discourse In his paper. 'L. assume, he argued, that there is a set of principles which direct us to a iterpretation of what someone says, w to the contrary, The co-operative princi aim to make our conversational contribution ‘such as is required, at the 61Discourse analysis stago at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction’ (Grice 1975: 45) of the exchange in which we aro engaged. Thus, when someone is speaking to us, we hasa our under standing of what thoy are saying on the asouraption that they are s ‘what needs toe aid. rthor than tor than need to bo aid ( lelicatessen example above), they ara saying it inthe inoaction (eich av when te person working inthe elentence has finished serving one persan and is ready to s havo a reason for saying what they say (as L well as to mak working in the their cu an offer of service as 10 be served). The person Grice based his co-operative principle on fou ‘maxims, These are the maxims of , manner. The maxim of quality says people should only say what they belinva to be truc and what they have ovidence fur. Grice’s mania: uf ‘quantity says we should make our contribution as informative es is required for the particular purpose aud vt make it more informative than is required. The maxim of relution says we chould make our manner says we should be clear in what say, we should avoid ambiguity or obscurity and we should be end orderly in our contribution to the interaction. following example both speakers observe all uf these maxims. Both say all that is required at the appropriate conversation. They bolls ubserve the purpose and ditection of the 'n. What they say is relevant to the conversation and they ef, orderly and unambiguous in what they say: A Hi, What would you like? Bi ‘Two hundred grams of the shaved ham thanks, If someone is unsure of what they want to say, or wants to avoid someone inferring they have evidence for what they say, people often use metadiscourse (Hyland 2005b) to comment on what thoy are about to say, or have just said. This use of metadiscoursn is central to the interpretation of texts as it shows both their attitude to what they are saying as well as their attitude to the andienea of the te A spoaker may, for oxamplo, say ‘I may be mistaken, but...” or end a sentence with ‘mayhe ...' to show they aro aware of and are following the maxim of quality. Fqually, a speaker may say ‘I won't bare you with all the dotails’ to chow they are aware of the auaxiin of 62 Diecourse and pengeratios quantity. A speaker may indicate a change of topic using a device such as by the way" or use a marker such as ‘anyway’ to show they are aware may be sans aware of the observe them. We, thus, expect 4 person's contribution to an genuine, neither more nor less than is required, as well as clear and appropriate to the interaction. Grice argues that we assume a speaker is, following those maxims and combine this with our knowledge of the world to work out what they mean by what they say. In the BBC Panorama interview, many of the people Princess Diana is referring to need to be inferred from what has gone before in the interview. In the fol extract Princess Diana makes her con- tribution ‘as informative as is required for the current purpuse of the exchange’ (Grice 1999: 78) showing sho is obeying the maxim of quantity. Her interviewer Martin Bashir and the audience. she assumes, can clearly derive from her answer who she is talking about (Kowal and O'Connell 1997). Here Princess Diana uses ‘people around ‘me’ and ‘people in my environment’ to refer to the royal household, know who she is talking about: People's agendas changed overnight. I was now sepa- ‘was a problem, I was ‘going to deal with her? This hasn't happened before. Bushir — Whu wav arking thove questions? Diana: People around mo, people in this environment, and...- Bashir: The royal houschold? Diana: People in my onvironmont, yos, yor. At other points in tha interview, Princess Diana nsas ‘people’ to refer to the press and at other points the British public. When sho wants to 1 exactly who she is referting to (and is eboying the maxim ) she adds a Clarificat in the extracts below: Diana: Td like to be a queen of people's heaxts, in people’s hearts, but I don’t see myself being Queen of this ‘country. I don't think many people will want me to be Queen. yup. bocause that's what matters more than anything ‘else.Discourse analysis There are times, however, when being truthful, brief and relevant might have different meanings. Indood different tions may have different understandings of what ‘he truthful. rel: and brief’ moans, Thoro aro. further, occasi brief and truo at the same time (Cook 1980) ‘flouting’ of the co-operative principle and its maxims, 3.5. Flouting the co-operative principle On some occasions speakers Mout intend their hearer to understand observe the muxim, and tn following example a stud asked to be put on hold for is aot true (oF physically possible), and intends the wo know tht Librarian: {raises his eves, looks at the student with na facial expression] Student: Hi. Could you check for me whether [ have any books to collect? Librarian: (swipes the student's card, clears his throat, wipes his nose with a tissue, glances at the computer screen, ‘turns to the shelf to get @ book, then another book) Student: Any more? Librarian: (turns and gets a third book, stamps them all with the Student: Librarian, As yuu going w burrow all the books in the library? Student: OK. [see .. thank you very much People may also flout the maxim of relation, or he told they are flouting this maxim. in similar ways. The following oxtract is an example of this. An American student has asked a Chinese student directions to the ctation. As they are walking to the station, the fol- lowing conversation occurs: Chinese student: What do you do in America? American student: { work in a bank. China student "sa good job lsu ‘American student Chinese student: Them, how auch is your salary every month? American student. 7 Chinese student: Amorioan student: Why are you ashing Wat? Di use and pragmatics Chinese studont: ust asking, nothing else... American student: ‘The station isn't far is it? Here the question the Chinese student has asked does not observe tha ion for an English conversation of this kind. He is not though the American student clearly is. He then asks her if she 15 trav is married. ‘the American Tn the next example the serving person politely suggests customer is flouting the maxi necessary, as the ham is alread; A B: A: Bi ‘Thoy'r9 all really thin, so. i. Differences between Houting and vi ‘Thomas (1995) and Cutt that they are my's gone ai “Mummy's gone away to decide if she wants a divorce or n rather than flouts, the maxim of mannor (Cutting 2002: 40). Hes speaker intends tho hearor to understand something ather truth, on purpose. ‘A speakor may also ‘infringe’ a moxim when they fail to observe a maxim with no intent ji. Overlops between maxims There is also often overlap betwoon each of Grice's maxims. An utterance may be both unclear and long i ly aexplable, and indeed preferred, to flout a maxim (such as 65Discourse analysis quality) for reasons of tact and politeness, such as when | ask someone if they like comothing I am wearing, end they don’t important, then, for both the prod: spokon and written discouse to under following those maxims, or not, in whi interview is a good example of maxims (aspect points across. Even when she pauses, view, she is observis is required, at the stage mn of the conversati 3.6. Cross-cuhural pragmatics and discourse The ways in which people perform speech acts, and what they mean by what they say when they perform them, often varies across cultures. One of my Japanese students complained, for example, that he had had work dono by a local (English-speaking) builder that was uusutisfav- tory and no matter how much he pushed the matter he could not get the builder lw apologize. On reflection, he realized that this was. in part, due to the apology in English as opposed to an apology i lis expecied the builder to apologize as a matter of, course and he was very disturbed t ‘This did In English. he dis- covered, the apology, for the builder. would moan that he was both taking ‘work and agreeing to do something, aon ation tho builder was most likoly keon to avoid given the financial. and other, implications this might have had for him. Ia Japanece, the apology would not nevossarily have lad (hese implications. i, Communication across cultures Different languages and cultures, then, often have different ways of dealing with pragmatic issues, as well as different ways uf obsurving 's maxims (Wiorzbicka 2003). Tanguages may have different under 66 Discourse ond pragmotice in conversational interactions. Béal (1992) found in a communication in the workplace study thet communication difficulties occurred betweon English and French speakers because the English speakers saw questions such as ‘How are you?’ or ‘Did you have a good week- end?” as examples of “ \munication and expected short, lard answ inks’, Tho Fronch speaker saw the questions as ‘real’ requests for information. and, sh speakers’ eyes, flouted length about their heal ‘The same ts a true of greater tolerance for silence than does English. In a study of Japenese speakers’ participation in English university tutorials, Nakane (2003) found that miscommunication occurred because native English speaker tutors interpreted the Japanese students’ ‘wait time’ in answering questions as flouting the maxim of quantity. In this case, the Japanese students did not say enough, soon encugh, tutors’ English speaking expect y. It can, for example, ightfulness and a wish not to be seon as forward or thus, in Japanese has a very important role in the role in English ters. oF recommendation of cross-cultural pragmatic differ. ences. As she points out, in English academic settings letters of recommendation may vary in strength of recommendation. Readers also take into account the prestige of the person where they work and the content and tone of the i als ig3, however, the situation is quite different. Japanese recommendation are often much shorter than they are in English and yy nud ty ask fox more , rather than rely on the lotter alone. An thus, may misread a Japanese lettor of they are not aware ofthe differont pragmatic role and values these texts have in their particular cultural setting. o7Discourse analysis ii. Cross-cultural pragmatics Studies which investigate the c1 veferred lu us cross- ferent pragma reflected in cultural use of speech acts are ral pragmatics. As Wivrzbicka noims reflect different cultural eople say and what they the example of thanking in Japanese and English. The concepts encoded i hh, she says, to thank someone means, roughly, to say wo feel something good towards them because of something guud they huve done and we want them to feel good in return. But in Japanese culture with its stress on social hierarchy, moral duty and the repayment of favours, this sitnation is somewhat difforent. Japanese speakers of English, further, may frequently say sory when they mean thank you, leading to a completely difforont interpretation of what they mean. from what they intend to mean. As Cameron (2001: 74) explains, the act of thanking is an expression of indebtedness in both English and Japaneca. In the ease of Japanoce, however, ‘a debt not vet repaid calls for an apology from the debtor’. Apologizing, thus, for a Japanese speaker. is one way of expressing indebtedness. and thanking sameane iii. Pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics Two key notions in the area of ernss-cnltwnal pragunaties are prugnn. linguistics and sociopraymatics (Leech 1983). Pragmalinguistics is “the study of tho more the pragmatic perf tural contexts iv. Cross-cultural pragmatic ‘The failure to convey or undorstand a pragmatic intontio language and culture is what Thomas (1983) terms cross: types of cross ilure: sociopragmatic failure and pragmalinguistic failure. Soriopragmatic failure refers t tion whore a speaker of a sccond language assesses situational factors on the basis of the soviuprag 68 Discourse and prngmatics norms of their first language and draws on these for the performance of 4 particular speech act. ‘An example of saciopragmal ire is a foreign manager izing a Thai worker in front of the leagues for being regu for work. In Thai culture, this should not bo done in auch a public way. Doing this causes the person being cri A Thai person might do this by ment rather than g 0 rermediary, such as a friend or to the person who is late for work (Gibson 10 situation where a speaker tic moans of roalizing a specch act we draws frum the failure to understand difforont cul tural perceptions and expectations of culture-specific speech act performance. ‘An example of pragmalinguistic failure is an English speaker falling to realize the importance of attaching an address form such as chan or san to someone's namo when speaking to them in Japanese. An exchange student from the US, for example, may think she is being irlendly by calling out her friend's name, Akiko, in a Japanese play- ground whereas for Japanese speakers, tt friends, She needs to opposite effect. ‘Sometimes the results of this kind of miscommunication can be very serious, to say the least. The example of a Korean immigrant to the US who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for killing her son is a case in point. Her son was killed in an accident. but when asked by the ico about this she constantly said ‘I killed my eon. It is my fault’. ‘This was taken as evidence by the US court that she was guilty of the charge that was laid against her. In fact, what she was doing in saying thie was in Koroan culture quito undorstandable. Sho was, a a Korean. mother, overstating her respor 'y for the family problem and horsolf of id not kuow how to use appro 60 was soon as rude an on the outcome of her case. case was reviewed and she was pardoned and (Cho 1992). in short, she did not know ‘how, w!Discourse onelysis the target culture due to inguistic competence in the particular linguistic and situation (Thomas 1983). 3.7 Conversational implicature and discourse production and interpret versational implicature, Conversational speaker's al meaning of what the speaker said, the ‘conversational principle and its maxims. For example, if say "There's nothing on at the movies’ I do not mean ‘nothing at all’, but rather ‘nothing that I'm interested in seeing’. The person 1 am speaking to will my meaning, ture is not the same, ‘As Thomas (1995: 58) explains, an implicature ily hy the speaker and may (or may not) be ‘An inference, on the other hand, is pro- fact, however, ‘ig generated inter understood by the heat duced by a hearer on the basis of certain evidence and may m he the same as what a speaker intends. To calculate an implicature, Grice (1975) argues, hearers draw on tho conventional moanings of words, the ca-nperative principle and its maxims, the linguistic and non-linguistic context of the utterance, items of backgraund knowledge and the fact that all of these are availablo to both participants and thay hath assume this to be the case. Given this basic process, implicature can be created in one of ways. A maxim can be followed in a straightforward way and hnarer implicates what the speaker intends, The following example, whero a customer orders a beer, illustrates this: a What'd you like? B: Aboor thanks, Hore, B has followed tho maxim of quality hy saying what he wants, saying enough and no more. and the mi answer that is cloarly relevant to the question. Here, no implicature is generated that is necessary for the interpretation of the utterance. im might also be flouted because of a clash with another A ‘What time did your flight get in this morning B Seven (when it actually arrived at 7.04 am) 70 Discourse ond progmotics Herr R Mlauts the maxim of quality (the truth) in order to obey the make their own way to the aizport. i. Conventional and particularized conversational implicatures 705, no particular conte: ove exampl: 6 speaker is about to say he use of ‘anyway’ conventionally impl iginal topic of a convorsation (Lo Castro 2009 livatures, however, are derived ur contest, ruther than from tho 186 of the worde alone. from the maxim of relation. That is, the speaker assumes I search for the relevance of what they ere saying and derive an intended meaning. For example in; 7 A You'rs aut of coffaa, B: Don't worry thoro's a chop on the corner. A derives from B’s answer shop on convers will he able to buy coffee from the iturog, in fact, are particularized Scalar implicatures A further kind of implicature is scului ‘when a person uses a word from a set of words of scale of values. Words such as ‘all’, ‘most’, ‘somiething’ and ‘nothing’ aro oxamples of thie. In the following conversation B it on a bus, talking on his mobile phone to A. A asks H about his private life: express somo 7”Discourse onalysis, AL Have you been up to anything Bi Not really, well ... nothing I can us. doing ‘something ‘A spuukor m: they are speaking to earcal out another item in the scale. The following extract from the BBC Pur Princess Diana cancels out “half of’, adding an explanation as to why she has done thi Stokoe 1999): Bashir: Diana: 3.8 Politeness, face and discourse ‘Two further key notions in the area of pragmatics and discourse are politeness and face. The notion of face’ comes from Goffman’s (1967) Work on face and from the English ‘folk’ notion of face, which ties up with notions of being embarrassed, humiliated ng fae’ (Brows and Levinson 1987), Politeness and fee are important for under. standing why people choose to say things in a particular way in spoken und wriltcn discourse, In early work on this topic, Lakoff (1973) proposes three maxims of politeness. These are “du 7 ke your we apologize for imposing by seying . We make requests in an elaborate fashiou by suying ‘Do you think you could possibly ..." to give our hearer the 0} Or we might make them feel good by saying something like ‘You’ this than me’ The following exampl tes these maxims. Stephanie calls mn to ask for a ride home: you could 72 Riscourie and pragmatics Or gem you in a cu to havo dinner so you ean en out ‘Oh we've alroady got dinner ready. Pi get you Oh that'd bo great. ['m at Town Hall Yep ‘And the train’s not for ten minutes ‘come and Stophanle: Mum: ‘Stephanie: In thio oxample Stephanie asks for ly come pick me 1 option by suggesting if she is busy cooking dinner is not necessary, and makes her mother feel good by sayis that'd ples and co-operative principles, however, are often in conflict with each other. There urs ulso situations in which vue principle might become more important than another. In an emer- gency, for example, thay is less need to be polite and “make your hearer feel god” Uae ‘a nomial situation. ‘Make your hearer feet good’, further, may not always be a matter of words but “how you sty what you say'. Fur example Cameron's (2000) study of cali centres found ‘voice impression’ and ‘smiling to be equally important politeness strategies. In her juat what the operators said, but low i Involvement and independence in spoken and written discourse ‘Two further issnes in discussions of face and politonoss are the nations of involvement and independence (Scollou aud Woug-Scollon 200. ‘The term involvement rafers to the nood people have to be invol with others aud to show this involvement; that is a person’s right and noed to be considered a norm: 1g, supporting member of society: in other words, to he tre a member of a group. Wo might by showing our interest in someone, by them, by approving whut they are doing or by using in- ty markers such as given names, or nicknames, ‘The part of face refers to a person’s right not be dominated ue imposed on by others and to be ablo to act with or autonomy. We do this, for exaniple, by 73Discourse analysis not presuming other people's needs or interests, by giving people options, by not imposing on other people and by apologizing for interruptions. In order to maintain social relationships penple acknowledge b is of & person's face at the same time. Poople thus jeness and rapport with each other, and ‘Choosing a politeness strategy ‘We draw on a number of consid politeness stmteyy. We muy eon are from our hearer. For example, are we close friends, is the hearer older than I am, and are we ‘soctal equals’? We may consider how much or how little power the hearer hes over us. For example, am I talking to my boss or to my employee, to a policeman, to a service eutpluyee, ur lo a judge? We may also consider how significant what | want is to mo, and to the person I am talking to. For example, am I asking for change, fora loan, or to borrow a cart We may consider how much empl both of us tures) place on involvement and independen¢ the one we are in, And we mey consider whether both of us would have the same answors to these questions (Gee 1993). 3.9 Face and politeness across cultures thatthe specific nature of faoa and polite. At is important to point In some cultures refusal of an offer may he merely polite (even if to an English speaker a refusal may soom liko refusing involvement) and in ‘others tho opposite may be truc (Cook 1989) Gu (1990) discusses politeness in rel 198 not 6o much in torms of psychological wants, but rather in terms of soclal norms. Face is threatened he ‘one’s needs are not met, but when someone fai Discourse and pragmatics ‘more a matter of socially obligatory linguistic choices through which social harmony is achieved (Eolen 2001}. Giftgiving is an example of a politeness strategy that varies across cultures. Brown and Levinson list gift-giving as a positive politenoss strategy in Englich, or in Scollon and Wong.Scollon's (2001) toems an involvement strategy; Usa is, a statogy by which we show our clocensce and rapport t what tha parss yught them, and what their en expression of dut intaining social relati intimacy and rapport, than it might be in (Davies ae Ten 2002) The ways in which people express politeness also differs across cultures. On one occasion I asked a group of bilingual Japanese/Eng- lish students how they would ask a friond to close the window if thoy ‘wore in the car with them and they were feeling cold. These students hhad all lived in au English-speaking country and were fluent in both English and Japanese. These are some of the examples they gave me of what they would say in Hnglish to an English speaking friend: ule Kass at apr n English speaking country Gould you close the window for me? Can I close the window? Hoy yo, close the window, would you? 1s what they said they would say in Japanese to a Japanese friend: I wonder why 1's $0 cold today? In the Japanoce oxamplos nono of tho studonts actually mont window. When I asked them about this, one of the studi that that in Japanese indirectnas isa sign of intimacy ant botwoon friends ae a ‘and friondchip. Tndirectness, then, is often an invalvament, ar pos is often au indepen ‘also told me that in Japancoo vement ie much moro important than indopondot Thus, whereas in English a speaker may weigh uy what they ere saying 75Discourse analysis in terms of both involvement and independance, a Japanese spenkor may give much greater weight to what they are sayi involvement, rather than independence. 3.10 Politeness and gender according wing differences (2095) discusses this at Leng! leness strategies between men while research shows that, overal it also depends on what we mean by “p are Wwing compared and what setting or ty of practice the interaction occurs in; that is, the particular local conditions in which the man or woman is speaking (Cameron 1990), Tn her book Gender and Poli -ness Mills (2003) points out that context has an important role to play in terms of whether what say ‘Hello gorgeous’ ken as an expression. to a woman walking by this can have the opposite effect. For the woman, it may be an act of harassment. For the men on the bui and rapport among gorgeous’ is a po: politeness strategy, at least for the person it is boing eaid to. Wo noad. then, to consider who is saying what, to whom, from what po: where and for what purpose in order to come ta a closer understanding of this (Cameron 1998), ies of practice view of politeness and gender is also discussed by Christie (2002) who looks at politeness and gender in in the WK. Chi behaviour (Wat are part of the nale Members of Parliament rarely apologize, a finding that ther, muru gunural politonoss and gondér reaoarch that suggests that women apologize more than men. Indeed, as with the 7 Discourse ond pragmatics work on language and identity. politeness and gender research sug- gests that it may not always be a person's gendered identity that is the most salient in a part i perhaps some other aspect of to camry out certain activities with each other. Parents doing 4 group of high-school the ways they do things, and their common knowledges, values and belicfs emerge and develop as they carry out their activities. Researchers in the area of linguistic politeness argue for a communities of practice politeness is typically expressed. its function and what in the particular soctal and communicative setting, place and time. 3.11 Face-threatening acts ‘Some acts ‘threaten’ a porson’s face. These ara called fav ‘acts. In the earlier example between the librarian and the stud vrarian shows no signs of closeness or rapport and the st this case their involvement) is threatened. Often we use devices (Fraser 1989) in conversations to take the edge off face- threatoning acts. Ono example is the use of a ‘pre-sequence’ as in the following i ePee ‘Thic example aleo uses an insertion soquonce in the middle to take the ‘edgo off the faco-threatening act of ‘inviting samanne ant. i also use an offrecord speech act as in:Riceeurea nays ‘Here, A never actually asked B to go for a drink 50 donsn’t lose any face by being rejected. Equally, B hasn't rejected th on record but simply ‘cammontad’ an the weather in their off-record rej jon of universal. fqu: may not be seen the same way in another. Matsumoto (1989 ‘example, argues (hat the use of deference in Japanese is an indication of social register and relationship and not a politeness strategy. Gu (4990) and Mao (1994), equally, argue that the politeness model pro- posed by Brown and Levinson (1907) in their Politeness. Some Uni- versals in Language Usage, for example, does not suit Chinese. As Gu (1990: 256) observes, while politeness, of itsel!, may be a universal phenomenon, ‘what counts as polite behaviour including values and norms attached to such behaviour) is ... [both] culture-specific and mess strategies are not the same across languages and cultures and might mean different things in different ling tural contexts. A lack of understanding of politeness steal in different languages and cultures can be a cause of cross-cultural failure. As Tanaka (199/) and others have pointed out, of @ language are often less tolerant of pragmatic errors communication contexts than they aro, for example appropriateness, it effective cross- ple need an awareness, as well as an expectation, of socinpragmatic differences, as much as they necd an understanding of how these differences might be expressed linguistically. Loamors at different levels uf pruficivucy, further, may have dif- in their use of politeness stra- inguistic means of performing politeness strategies boforo they acquire pragmatic rules of use. Beebe and Waring (2005), for example, looked at different learnere’ responses to rudeness in English at different levels of proficiency. ‘They found that the higher proficiency studeuts were miure aggressive response to mideness than the lower proficiency students, and thant native speaker might be. In their view, the issue is not so much 78 Discourse ond progmatice teaching pragmatic stretegies, but wor inguistic aspects such ion that affect the way each ina more subtle and offective way’ (Beebe and Waring 2005: 74). 3.13 Conclusion his chapter has discussed key not from a pragmatics perspective. While many researchers discuss the importance of pragmatic competence as a component of commu- nicative competence, much of the research in the area of pragmatics ‘and language learning has examined pragmatic development of the acquisition of particular speech acts or rather than some of the scussed in this chapter. As Tanaka (1997) observes, there is a paucity of research on the pragmatic aspect of secund language learners’ speech. What research there is, however, shows that language learners have the area of pragmatics. regardless of their is in the analysis of discourse not extra ar ornamental, like the part of discourse competence and. mumnicative competence (Kasper 1997) 3.14 Discussion questions 1. Think of possible speach acts for each of the following situations, Compare the three sets of spooch acts. In what ways are they difforont and why? For oxample is what you say influenced by your relationship with tho persan you ane speaking tu, Uieic age or their gender? Or is it influenced by things such as how well you know the other person, or your view of their social position in relation to yours? If the person your boss is that different, for example, than if the person you are speaking to is a co.workor? Or ix whut you say influenced by what you are talking about? * You and a close friend are having dinner together and you suddenly realize you have left your money at home. Ask your friend to lend you some money to pay for dinner. * You want to take a wook off work to see a friend who is ing you from overseas and you have no holidays owing 79