Semantic systems in english

2.2 Defining discourse analysis in English
Discourse analysis is a broad term for the study of the ways in which language is used between people, both in written texts and spoken contexts. It is сrucial to understand discourse analysis as a powerful tool or discipline that helps make sense of written or spoken languages; it studies information in terms of grammatical aspects and roles with which to achieve communicative purposes which, in turn, relate to linguistic issues. ²⁰Discourse analysis is related to systemic functional linguistics because it sees language used within contexts. According to Celce-Murcia and Olshtain , "discourse analysis is minimally the study of language in use that extends beyond sentences boundaries which entails a more cognitive and social perspective on language use"
Discourse analysis also deals with textual units in terms of experiential, interpersonal, and textual language functions. Taking into consideration Halliday and Hasan's explanation, experiential meaning has to do with the way words in sentences are associated with issues and events in the world. Interpersonal interaction is very similar to social interaction among people. Finally, textual meaning deals with language choices in the text that leads us to determine the type of genre found in texts. Language is the collection of these lexical units . So teaching in these units of meaning is actually more efficient than teaching word by word. The term discourse applies to both spoken and written language, in fact to any sample of language used for any purpose. Any series of speech events or any combination of sentences in written form wherein successive sentences or utterances hang together is discourse. ²¹In producing and processing discourse, meaning is inseparable from whom, where, why, etc. it is communicated. Thus, a “basic discourse unit” is a text segment with linguistic properties which are used to construe both semantic representations (interpretations, inferences) and the text and context models at stake. In our view, this definition frames well with Hannay and Kroon’s proposal for an alternative classification of discourse units. According to them “discourse planning involves at least two types: conceptual planning and strategic planning”. On the conceptual level the basic units are ideas that build up a conceptual model. On the strategic level the basic units are (discourse) acts corresponding to the discourse production steps.
On the basis of this classification, Hannay and Kroon hypothesize that “in English, discourse acts are preferably realized by intonation units for the spoken language”; and furthermore, that ²²“in English oral discourse the strategic discourse organization is more strongly reflected in the prosodic than in the syntactic structure”. This suggests that prosody may be a cue for organizing surface discourse structure, rather than for construing conceptual meaning. Thus far we have raised a number of important issues:
-discourse provides both for “ideas” (semantic content), and for “surface segments” (turns, units…) that are sensitive to the speech context of situation;
-both syntax and prosody provide linguistic cues that may be used to segment the discourse flow into delineated units.
-syntactic structures are preferably linked to the conceptual structure of the discourse
-syntactic clauses carry semantic content (ideas, referents, events);
-prosodic structures are preferably linked to the strategic development of discourse
-prosodic boundaries correspond to steps in the discourse progression;
In defining discourse units, most discourse models give priority either to syntax or to intonation; this leads to an approach that focuses either on discourse as a product (priority to syntax), or on discourse as a process (priority to intonation). We believe that there must be an intermediate position giving rise to units of analysis that really do result from the interaction between syntax and intonation and we would like to make a proposal for a definition of basic discourse units that does not give priority to either syntax (semantic orientation) or to prosody (strategic orientation). Another definition derived from the functionalist paradigm views discourse as 'language use.' This definition observes the relationship the discourse has with the context. A third definition of discourse attempts to bridge the formalist-functionalist dichotomy. The relationship between form (structure) and function is an important issue in discourse. Michael Stubbs says, 'Any study which is not dealing with (a) single sentences, (b) contrived by the linguist, (c) out of context, may be called discourse analysis.'²³ In other words, there is a shift of focus from sentences in isolation to utterances in context: to study language in use is to study it as discourse. This is a fact that 'knowledge of a language is more than knowledge of individual sentences.' The true meaning of a sentence can't be assigned by its only linguistic construction but it largely depends on reference (meaning in relation to exterior world), sense (meaning in relation to linguistic system) and force (meaning in relation to situational context).
While defining discourse, three definitions have been discussed – one derived from formalist paradigm, other from functionalist paradigm and third that includes both formalist and functionalist paradigms. Discourse analysis also deals with these paradigms. ²⁴Formalist or structural analysis of discourse describes '… discourse at several levels or dimensions of analysis and in terms of many different units, categories, schematic patterns or relations'. Structural analyses focus on the way different units function in relation to each other but they disregard 'the functional relations with the context of which discourse is a part'. Structurally based analysis of discourse find 'constituents' (smaller linguistic units that have particular 'relationship' with one another and that can occur in a restricted number of (often ruled-governed) 'arrangements'. Structural views of discourse analysis accept that discourse is comprised of 'units.' Harris's unit was the morpheme (and their combination into sentences) while Linde, Labov and many other linguists identified clause as unit. Many contemporary structural analysis of discourse view the sentence as the unit of which discourse is comprised.
The structural view of discourse analysis places discourse in a hierarchy of language structures, thus fostering the view that one can describe language in a unitary way that continues unimpeded from morpheme to clause to sentence to discourse. ²⁵Discourse analysis is necessarily the analysis of language in use. A piece of discourse must have a certain structure which depends on factors quite different from those required in the structure of a single sentence. The way sentences link up with each other to form discourse is cohesion. Cohesion makes the items hang together. Cohesion comes about as a result of the combination of both lexical and grammatical structures. It should be considered in terms of the two basic dimensions of linguistic organization – paradigmatic and syntagmatic. In this way it is meaningful to extend the principles of linguistic description beyond the limit of the sentence. One can study the structure of discourse paradigmatically by tracing the manner in which the constituent linguistic elements are related along the axis of equivalence, or one can study it syntagmatically by tracing the manner in which the linguistic elements are related along the axis of combination. By taking the former, one recognizes pronouns and other pro-forms as cohesive devises, and by taking the latter, it is such forms as sentence connectors and the thematic arrangements of sentence constituents which emerge the principal features of cohesion.
Some discourse analysts consider the larger discourse context in order to understand how it affects the meaning of the sentence. When we do discourse analysis, you might focus on:
-The purposes and effects of different types of language
-Cultural rules and conventions in communication
-How values, beliefs and assumptions are communicated
-How language use relates to its social, political and historical context. Discourse analysis is a common qualitative research method in many humanities and social science disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology and cultural studies. ²⁶Mosegaard Hanse lists a number of potential units, grouped into: form-based units (sentence, clause, turn, tone unit, utterance); content-based unit (proposition); and action-based units (speech act and communicative act). We discuss some of those in this section. In written discourse, units are often associated with sentences. A sentence is considered to be the smallest independent unit. The point of discourse analysis is to recognize in language levels of organization different from grammar. For a discourse analyst, in applied linguistics, knowing a language is not only being able to compose grammatically correct sentences. It is, above all, being able to use the language. Being able to use it to say that this is so, that that is such and such. And being able to use it to invite, insult, protest, request, forgive ... to perform acts. Being proficient is being able to say and being able to act. Discourse analysis, thus, requires basic units of analysis different from the sentence. Actually, two such units have been used, sometimes besides the sentence and sometimes instead of the sentence: the proposition and the illocutionary act, which correspond to the saying and acting referred to above.