Approach to Discourse

iva dlurrotun nihayah
2201409009
401-402

           In this chapter there are several approaches to discourse analysis based on the seventh-meeting material available. First approach is speech act theory. This approach is developed by Austin (1955) and Searle (1969). The basic unit of analysis is speech act (SA) or illocutionary force (IF). From the basic belief that language is used to perform action, Austin and Searle state that the basic unit conversational analysis must be functionally motivated rather than formally design one. The systemic name of this approach is Speech function (SF), the central issue in discourse structure.
            The second approach is Interactional Sociolinguistics and developed by Gumperz (1982) and Goffman (1959-1981). It is concerned with the interpretation of discourse and importance of context in production. The unit of analysis is grammatical and prosodic features in interaction. In other side, Schiffrin (1987) is focusing on quantitative interactive sociolinguistics analysis, especially discourse markers. His basic concern is on the accomplishment of conversational coherence and the unit’s analysis is turn.
            the third is Ethnography of communication. It is developed by Dell Hymes (1972b, 1974). It concerns with understanding the social context of linguistics interaction: ’who says what to whom’, when, where, why, and how. The prime unit of analysis is speech event which has some components. The analysis of the speech units’ components then we called ethnography of communication or ethnography of speaking. Then the ethnography framework has led to broader notion of communicative competence.

Systemic Functional Linguistic

Applied Linguistic ( meeting 8 assignment)
iva dlurrotun nihayah
2201409009
401-402

Systemic-Functional, is functional and semantic rather than formal and syntactic in orientation, takes the text rather than the sentence as its object, and defines its scope by reference to usage rather than grammaticality. The name "systemic" derives from the term SYSTEM, the theoretical representation of paradigmatic relations, contrasted with STRUCTURE for syntagmatic relations.

Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL) is a theory of language centred around the notion of language function. SFL starts at social context, and looks at how language both acts upon, and is constrained by, this social context. Systemic semantics includes what is usually called 'pragmatics'. Semantics is divided into three components. They are ideational Semantics (the propositional content), Interpersonal Semantics (concerned with speech-function, exchange structure, expression of attitude, etc.) and Textual Semantics (how the text is structured as a message, e.g., theme-structure, given/new, rhetorical structure etc.

The focus of systemic functional Liguistic  is not on texts as decontextualized structural entities in their own right but rather on the mutually predictive relationships between texts and the social practices they realize.
Semantics is the interface between language and context of situation (register). Semantics is therefore concerned with the meanings that are involved with the three situational variables Field, Tenor and Mode. Ideational meanings realize Field, interpersonal meanings realise Tenor and textual meanings realize Mode. Interpersonal meanings are realised lexicogrammatically by systems of Mood and Modality and by the selection of attitudinal lexis.

The Mood system is the central resource establishing and maintaining an ongoing exchange between interactants by assuming and assigning speech roles such as giving or demanding goods and services or information. Modality is the resource concerned with the domain of the negotiation of the proposition or proposal between the categorical extremes of positive or negative. The negotiation may be in terms of probability, usuality, obligation or inclination. Lexicogrammatically textual meanings are realised by systems of Theme and Information. Theme selections establish the orientation or angle on the interpersonal and ideational concerns of the clause whereas Information organises the informational status or relative newsworthiness of these concerns.

discourse analysis

iva dlurrotun nihayah
2201409009
401-402

Stubb argues in his book (1983:1), that discourse analysis as analysis of language use beyond the sentences, concern with the interrelationship between language and society, and dialogic properties of everyday communication.
Text analysis and discourse analysis are two different things. In the text analysis, it needs linguistics analysis, and the interpretation is based on the linguistic evidence. In other side, discourse analysis study the text-forming devices with reference to the purpose and function for which the discourse was produce. It relates to contexts of situation, culture, and social. The goal of discourse is to show how the linguistics elements enable language users to communicate. In other words it tells us about happenings, what people thinks, belief, how text represents ideology, etc.
            Discourse analysis is defined as the study of how stretches of language used in communication assume meaning, purpose and unity for their users (coherence). Coherence itself is an interaction of text with given participant based on the context (participants’ knowledge, perception of paralanguage, other texts, the situation, the culture, the world in general and the role, intentions and relationships of participants.
There are some approaches to Discourse Analysis: speech act theory (interpretation), interactional sociolinguistics, ethnography of communication, pragmatics, conversational analysis, variation analysis, and structural functional approaches.