DISCOUSRE ANALYSIS

TIPIC :
DISCOURSE AS A PRODUCT

SUBMITTED TO :
MA’AM HANIA RIZWAN

SUBMITTED BY :
GROUP 4
ZOHA AMMAR ROLL# 4
LAIBA MARIYAM ROLL# 9
IQRA KARIM ROLL#18
MARIA SHARAFAT ROLL#19
FASIHA AFZAL ROLL# 21
RIMSHA KARAMAT ROLL # 27
ZARMEENA NOOR ROLL# 32
NAZIFA FATIMA ROLL# 42
MARIA YOUNAS ROLL# 49
 Discourse as a product
Discorse is defined as
“ any subject of language use”
Linguistic studies on discourse tend to fall into two categories:

 “Text as a product view” or “grammatial approach”

 “Discourse as process” or “cognitive pragmatic aproach”.
Discourse as a product view
Discorse as a structured text.
Main characteristic : Cohesion of a set of sentence ar utterance.
There are many factors through which a discourse works as a product.

Discourse and Pragmatics

Pragmatics works by realting stretches of language to the physical, social and psychological
world in which they take place. Discourse might be defined as the totality of all these elements
interacting.
Pragmatics provides meaning develop at given time, so is like a snapshot of meaning. On the
other hand, discourse reveals itself in tme.
Sometimes over long period, so is like a film.
 Discourse as a rank structure
“On a way of representing relatinship of pasts to a whole in a rank structure”.
Each rank is made up of one or more rank i.e there are four ranks in grammar

 Sentence
 Clause
 Phrase
 Word
It is possible for a atructure to consist of a singlr clause which consist of single phrase which
consist of single word. Like come is at once a sentence, clause, phrase and word
Likewise, this rank structure is applicable in the case of discourse.

Birmingham School of Discourse Analysis

A pioneering and influential study in thiss field of discourse was carried out by Siclair and
Coulthard in 1975.
Sinclair and Coulthard recorded a number of British primary school lessons. On the basis of data
they proposed a rank structure for these lessons as felows:

 Lesson
 Transaction
 Exchange
 Move
 Act
Acts- are the lowest rank in this scale are speech acts. Then they draw up rules, based on the
data, showing how these acts combine together to form moves and how moves combine ito
form various kind of exchange.
Like Grammatical Formulated rules descibing how words combine into phrases and phrases into
clauses.
For example , One kind of exchange, teahing exchange, consist of between one and three
moves.
Initiation :
An opening move . For example , Lets’s start our study about rivers.

Response :
An answering move . For example, Yes, that is inetresting.

Feedback :
A follow-up move. FOr example, I am pleased with you.

Discourse Typology
Brimingham school approacg examines spoken discourse seeking to interpret in tems of rank
structure and shows when it is analyzes more order and form in them than forst listen.
They dvided discourse into 2 major categories Spoken and written and further divided into 4
skills, speaking, Listening, writing and reading.
Division of language into the spoken and written is clealy based on difference in production and
reception.
Foraml , informal , planned , unplanned discourses ithr spoken or written are associated with
speech.

Conversation as Discourse Types

1. Term conversation is widely used in non-technical sense.
2. Any primarily talk is conversation when necissited by a practical task.
3. Unequal power of participants is small.
4. It is primarily for the participants and not use for the outside audience.
But these definitions are imprecise. Boundary between
conversation and other discourse type is a fuzzy one, and there are many intermediate cases.
 Conversational Analysis
 It seems sometimes different from discourse analysis.
 Ethomethodologists worked to rdiscover what methods people use to participate in and
make senses of interaction.
 They view discourse as developing process rather than a finished product.

Turn Types
One kind of turn alternation is an adjency pair.
In an adjency pair, there is often a choice of two likely responces.
One response is termed as preferred response and the other as not preferred.
Conclusion
The possibilty remains reamins that the two approaches may be developed and
reconcited, and a workby Richman has achieced soe succee=ss in exhausting formulates for the
combination of moves in conversation, and linking these to particulaar mechanism but both
research and theory into the structure and mechansm of structure have a very lng way to go.
All these factors help better to understand discourse as a product.
THE END