Discourse Analysis: Understanding how we understand.

I. Introduction

KEY WORD: Cope.

As primates humans have the unique ability to cope with

seemingly incorrect or incoherent speech. Instead of simply

dismissing text as “ungrammatical”, we try to apply some sense into

them.

1) Cohesion: ( The ties and connection that exist within and

between words)

The ties that are used to establish this connection are

referred to as Cohesive Ties.

 Words
 Phrases
 Connectors, verbs and tenses

Analysis of cohesive ties within a text gives some insight into how writers

structure what they want to say. This is how, for example, we can understand many

political speeches.

An appropriate number of cohesive ties can serve as a crucial factor in our

judgment on whether something is well written or not.

 Discourse Analysis: Understanding how we understand.

The conventions of cohesive structure differ from one language to another

according to the rules imposed by the culture. This can be one of the many reasons

why some texts in certain languages can pose a challenge to translate.

The case becomes especially even more challenging when the Target Language

and Source Language don’t share the same kind of alphabets (English vs. Japanese).

Cohesion alone is not enough; however, since there must be some other

factors that contribute to identifying connected texts that make sense from others

that do not. This factor is usually referred to as “Coherence”.

2) Coherence: “Everything fitting together”

It is usually people who “make sense” of what they read

or hear. They try to arrive at a “rational” interpretation that is
in line with their experience of the way the world is. It takes more
than “linguistic” competence for a proper human conversation.

3) Speech events: (Debates, discussions, interactions…):

There is enormous variation in what people say and do in different

circumstances. In order to properly analyze the sources of that
variation, we should first consider a number of criteria:

 The roles of speaker/hearer

 The nature of their relationship
 power dynamic between the two sides
 Discourse Analysis: Understanding how we understand.

All these factors influence what is said and how it is said

II. Conversation Analysis:

Conversation: an activity in which two individual or more “take turn

“in expressing their mind.

Completion Points: a way to indicate that one person is done talking

and another begins (e.g. Facial expressions, sounds ( ahumm,
sighing…) ,movements or pauses are all forms of indicating completion).

1) Turn-Taking:
Turn-taking is a classical convention that is part of human
conversation. Using this technique correctly could serve speakers a
great deal. They would be able to achieve correct and complete
communication.
In basic terms, “turn-taking” is a useful and strategically
beneficial commination procedure. However, due to difference in
cultural customs, misunderstanding can occur. Adherence to different
turn-taking conventions from that used by the other side could ^pause
a threat to the continuity of the conversation.
2) Rudenessi or Shyness ii: are simply the consequence of participants
adhering to different conventions of “turn-taking”
3) Strategies of Conversation: Pauses- Sounds…These types of strategies
should not be considered undesirable or domineering. They are present
in the conversational speech of most people and are part of what
makes conversations work. We recognize these subtle indicators as
ways of organizing our turns and negotiating the intricate system of
interaction via language. One of the most noticeable features of
 Discourse Analysis: Understanding how we understand.

conversational discourse is that it is generally very “co-

operative”; it takes two to tango.

i
If one person/speaker cuts in on another speaker in the middle of their turn
ii
If one speaker keep waiting for an opportunity to take turn and none seems to arise.

III. The Co-operative Principle :

According to philosopher and researcher Paul Grice, human conversations

tend to follow a common pattern of conversational behavior. Grice argues
that all homo sapiens’ oral communications are based on mutual cooperation
between the speaker(s)and hearer(s).The co-operative principle is clearly
stated in this way:

“Make your conversational contribution such as is required , at the stage at which

it occurs , by the accepted purpose or direction of talk exchange in which you are
engaged”

Supporting this principles are four maxims ,often referred to as “the Grecian
Maxims”:

A. The Quantity Maxim:

1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (by the current

context of the conversation).

2. Do not make you contribution more informative than is required.

B. The Quality Maxim:

Supermaxim: Try to make your contribution one that is true

Maxims: 1.Do not say what you believe to be false

2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence/knowledge.

A. The Relevance Maxim: Be Relevant.

B. The Manner Maxim:

 Discourse Analysis: Understanding how we understand.

Supermaxim: Be perspicuous.

Maxim: 1.Avoid obscurity of expression

2.Avoid ambiguity

3.Be Brief

4.Be orderly

1) Hedges:

Hedges are certain type of expressions that we are concerned about

following the maxims of while being co-operative participants in a

conversation. Hedges can be defined as words or phrases used to indicate

that we are not really sure that what we are saying in totally true or

complete (e.g. “ Probably-it is possible that-nothing is sure but…”).

2) Implicatures:

NO human interaction or statement, whether formal or informal, is devoid of

implications. We basically cannot function without implications. They are usually

semantic/Verbal, but physical implications are as valuable and significant as

linguistic forms of implication. But, for the implication to be effective, a

certain amount of background knowledge must be involved for the process to be

meaningful.

IV. Background Knowledge:

To properly describe the conversational implicatures(s) involved in any

statement, an appeal to some background knowledge must be shared by the

 Discourse Analysis: Understanding how we understand.

conversational participants. How we use our background knowledge to reach an

interpretation of what we see, read or hear depends much on our perception of the

world; this is critical part of the process of discourse analyses. How we

interpret discourse of any kind is also completely dependent on our knowledge of

the conversation’s topic. We “build our interpretations” by relying on more

than is presented to us on the spot

We create what a text is about , based on our expectations of what normally

happens (like when reading a novel- you read it, but your interpretation of the

text is built around your expectations which ,in turn, originate from the

background knowledge you accumulated through experience-)

1) Schema and Schemata:

A “Schema” in psychology and cognitive science is a pattern of thought on

behavior that organizes categories of information and the relationship

among them. Schema (Or Schemata in Plural) can also be described as mental

structure of preconceived ideas, a framework representing some aspect of

the world, or a system of organizing and perceiving new data.

Schemata influence attention and the absorption of new knowledge:

individuals tend to notice things that fit into their schema; objects,

other people or ideas that do not contradict or threaten their vision of

the world. This has mostly to do with the way our brains receive, interpret,

develop and process schemas on daily basis. In PIAGET’s THEORY OF

Discourse Analysis: Understanding how we understand.

DEVELOPMENT, children construct a series of schemata, based on their

environment, to help them understand the world (e.g. A kid in kindergarden

is taught that there is kind of animal called “an elephant”, that it is

grey and that it makes a unique sound, when that kid goes out and sees

anything that looks like an elephant and sounds like an elephant, he will

identify it immediately as an elephant).