Saif Khan

Chapter 1: Discourse as Interaction in Society

Para 1

Certainly! The provided content is a passage from a debate in the 102nd US House
of Representatives in 1991. In this debate, a bill called the "Civil Rights and
Women's Equity in Employment Act" was under discussion. It was submitted by the
Democratic majority but faced strong opposition from Republicans.

The key points in this passage are as follows:

1. Date and Context: The debate took place on June 4, 1991, in the US House of
Representatives.

2. Bill Description: The bill in question aimed to address civil rights and equity in
employment, particularly focusing on women's rights and issues related to
employment opportunities.

3. Opposition: Republicans strongly opposed this bill. They argued that, despite its
explicit wording, the bill would effectively result in the establishment of quotas for
employers and could lead to what they viewed as frivolous lawsuits against
employers.

4. Mr. Rohrabacher's Contribution: The passage includes a statement from Mr.

Rohrabacher, a Representative from California, who voiced Republican opposition to
the bill during the debate.

Overall, this passage illustrates a political debate with differing perspectives on the
implications and consequences of the proposed legislation. Republicans were
concerned about the potential impact on employers and the legal system, while
Democrats supported the bill. It's an example of the kind of discourse and ideological
clashes that can occur in legislative settings.

Para 2

Certainly, this passage from Mr. Rohrabacher's contribution to the debate in the US
House of Representatives addresses several key points:

1. Opposition to Additional Legislation: Mr. Rohrabacher argues against the need for
more legislation in the area of civil rights and employment equity. He suggests that
there are already legal avenues available to address discrimination, such as lawsuits

1
 Saif Khan

and complaints filed with the EEOC (Equal Employment and Opportunities
Commission).

2. Existing Laws and Regulations: He mentions that there are numerous federal,
state, county, and local laws and regulations in place related to civil rights. He views
the proposed legislation as redundant in this context.

3. Critics of the Bill: Mr. Rohrabacher criticizes the bill by suggesting that the primary
beneficiaries would be lawyers, politicians, and political activists. He implies that
these groups may gain from the legislation at the expense of the less fortunate
citizens.

4. Focus on Economic Growth: He argues that what is needed is economic growth

and business expansion, rather than additional civil rights legislation.

In summary, Mr. Rohrabacher's contribution reflects his opposition to the proposed

civil rights bill, emphasizing his belief that existing legal mechanisms are sufficient
and that the bill may primarily benefit lawyers and political figures rather than
addressing the underlying issues of poverty and inequality. This passage represents
a viewpoint commonly found in debates over legislative initiatives related to civil
rights and employment equity.

Para 3

The passage you've provided offers an overview of the scope and focus of the
volume. Here are the key points:

1. Subject Matter: The volume explores various forms of speech, including that which
is delivered by individuals like Mr. Rohrabacher in the US House of Representatives.
It also delves into different types of talk and text found in informal and institutional
settings within society.

2. Purpose of Analysis: The primary goal of the volume is to examine the properties
of what people say or write. This analysis aims to understand how speech and text
are used to achieve social, political, or cultural objectives.

3. Contextual Emphasis: The volume looks at these forms of communication in both

local contexts and within the broader frameworks of societal structure and culture.
This indicates that it considers how language and discourse operate on multiple
levels, from individual interactions to larger cultural influences.

In essence, this volume explores the role of language and discourse in shaping and
reflecting social, political, and cultural actions within various contexts, ranging from

2
 Saif Khan

everyday interactions to broader societal structures. It aims to provide insights into

how language is used as a tool for communication and influence.

Para 4

The passage you've shared emphasizes that Mr. Rohrabacher's speech in the
parliamentary debate is not merely the utterance of words or grammatical sentences
in English. Instead, it is situated within a specific context:

1. Parliamentary Debate: Mr. Rohrabacher's speech occurs within the context of a

parliamentary debate, highlighting that his words are part of a structured and
formalized discussion within the political arena.

2. Political Parties: The debate involves speakers from two political parties, indicating
that it is a political discourse where opposing viewpoints are presented.

3. Historical Moment: It's noted that this debate took place at a specific date and
historical moment. This highlights that the context of the speech is influenced by the
circumstances and events of that time.

4. Argumentative Purpose: Mr. Rohrabacher's speech serves the purpose of arguing

against a particular bill with the ultimate goal of defeating it. This underscores that
his words are not just for communication but also for persuasion and influencing the
outcome of the legislative process.

In essence, the passage emphasizes that Mr. Rohrabacher's speech is a complex

and dynamic form of discourse that is deeply embedded in the context of a political
debate, with specific historical and persuasive objectives. This analysis reflects the
broader theme of discourse as a means of achieving social, political, and cultural
goals in specific situations and contexts.

Para 5

The passage you've provided further elaborates on Mr. Rohrabacher's speech in the
context of the debate and highlights its multifaceted nature:

1. Defending the Business Community: Mr. Rohrabacher's speech is not only about
opposing civil rights legislation but also about defending the interests of the business
community. This aligns with the perspective typically associated with conservative
legislators.

3
 Saif Khan

2. Multifaceted Speech: The passage emphasizes that Mr. Rohrabacher's speech is

rich and multifaceted. It serves multiple purposes, including arguing against the bill,
defending the business community, and engaging in political discourse.

3. Illustrating Key Concepts: It mentions that Mr. Rohrabacher's speech will be used
in the chapter to illustrate and discuss key concepts used in the volume. This
indicates that his speech serves as a practical example to explore and analyze these
concepts in depth.

4. Central Theme: The central theme of the volume is highlighted, which is that
people engage in various social and political activities through their use of language
and discourse. In this case, Mr. Rohrabacher's speech exemplifies this concept.

In summary, Mr. Rohrabacher's speech is shown to be a complex and multifunctional

form of discourse, and it will be used in the chapter to illustrate the broader theme
that individuals use language and discourse to accomplish a range of social and
political actions.

Main topic

From Structure and Process to Social Action in Context and Society

Para 1

The passage you've shared highlights some key aspects of discourse analysis as
discussed in the first volume of the book:

1. Levels of Structure: Discourse can be examined at various levels of structure. This

means that you can analyze it in terms of its syntactical, semantic, stylistic, and
rhetorical elements. Additionally, specific genres like argumentation and storytelling
can be studied within the context of discourse.

2. Abstract Structural Approaches: The passage mentions that there are abstract
structural approaches to understanding discourse. These approaches involve
breaking down discourse into its constituent elements and examining how they
function within the larger context of communication.

3. Cognitive Processes: Discourse analysis can also involve studying the cognitive
processes that occur during the production and comprehension of language by
users. This means looking at how individuals think, process information, and make
linguistic choices when engaging in discourse.

4
 Saif Khan

Overall, this passage underscores the multidimensional nature of discourse analysis,

where scholars examine not only the surface-level structure of language but also the
cognitive processes that underlie its production and comprehension. This holistic
approach allows for a deeper understanding of how language functions in
communication.
Para 2

The passage you've provided outlines how a comprehensive approach to analyzing

Mr. Rohrabacher's speech, such as the one described in the book, would work:

1. Semantic Analysis: It would examine how Mr. Rohrabacher's sentences are

semantically connected, particularly by looking at how he refers to different aspects
of legislation. This helps to understand the coherence and meaning behind his
words.

2. Rhetorical Analysis: The analysis would identify rhetorical devices like repetition,
irony, and metaphor used in the speech. For instance, the metaphor "being trapped
in poverty" adds a vivid dimension to his argument.

3. Stylistic Analysis: It would consider the stylistic choices made in the speech, such
as his use of popular expressions like "ying-yang" within a formal context. This sheds
light on the tone and style of his communication.

4. Argumentation Structure: Special attention would be given to the structures of

argumentation used in Mr. Rohrabacher's speech, which is a common feature of
speeches in the House. Understanding the structure of his argument is crucial to
grasp his position and persuasive techniques.

5. Cognitive Study: From a cognitive perspective, the analysis would delve into the
knowledge, attitudes, and mental representations that influence the production and
comprehension of the speech. It would also explore how his speech could shape the
opinions of his audience regarding civil rights legislation.

In essence, this comprehensive approach to analyzing discourse combines linguistic,

rhetorical, stylistic, and cognitive perspectives to provide a holistic understanding of
how language functions in communication and persuasion. It allows for a deeper
exploration of both the structural and mental aspects of speech

Topic

Discourse as Action

5
 Saif Khan

The passage you've shared highlights an essential aspect of discourse, particularly

in the context of the second volume of the book. It emphasizes that discourse is not
only a linguistic phenomenon but also a practical, social, and cultural one. Here are
the key points:

1. **Practical and Social Dimension**: Discourse goes beyond linguistic structure

and is practical in nature. When people engage in discourse, they are not merely
exchanging words but are also accomplishing social acts. This means that through
language, individuals are actively doing things, such as persuading, arguing,
explaining, or narrating.

2. **Social Interaction**: The passage mentions that discourse is intricately linked to

social interaction. This interaction takes various forms, including conversations and
dialogues. In these interactions, people use language to communicate, negotiate,
and engage with others.

3. **Contextual Embedding**: Discourse is embedded within specific social and

cultural contexts. These contexts can vary widely, from informal gatherings with
friends to more formal and structured situations like parliamentary debates. The way
language is used and the goals of discourse can vary depending on these contexts.

In summary, the passage underscores the idea that discourse is not just about words
and grammar but is a dynamic and purposeful activity embedded within the broader
framework of social and cultural interactions. It's about how people use language to
achieve specific goals and engage with others in diverse contexts.

Para 2

The passage you've provided highlights that a focus on discourse as action in

society doesn't mean the abandonment of structural analysis. Instead, it emphasizes
that the analysis of discourse as ongoing social action also involves attention to
order and organization. Here are the key points:

1. **Order and Organization**: Discourse analysis that views language as social

action still considers order and organization. It recognizes that language use involves
structured sequences of words, clauses, sentences, and propositions. However, it
goes beyond the formal structures to understand how these elements are used to
achieve communicative acts.

2. **Sequences of Acts**: In addition to examining the linguistic structures, this

perspective acknowledges that discourse consists of sequences of mutually related
acts. These acts include various forms of communication such as storytelling and
arguing.

6
 Saif Khan

3. **Real Language Users in Real Situations**: The analysis takes into account that
discourse occurs in real situations involving real language users. For example,
representatives arguing against civil rights legislation in the House are engaged in
real communicative acts that have social and political consequences.

In essence, this approach recognizes that discourse is both structured and

purposeful, and it aims to understand how linguistic elements are employed in real
situations to achieve social and communicative objectives. It combines the study of
linguistic structures with a focus on the actions and interactions of language users.

Para 3

The passage you've provided emphasizes a shift in perspective when analyzing

various properties of discourse, such as word order, style, and coherence. Here are
the key points:

1. **Abstract Structures vs. Strategic Accomplishments**: While linguistics

traditionally describes these properties as abstract structures, this approach
suggests looking at them from the viewpoint of language users in action. Language
users, including speakers and writers, strategically use these properties to achieve
their communicative goals. For example, they work to make their discourses
coherent to effectively convey their messages.

2. **Coherence and Strategy**: Coherence in discourse is not just a structural

concept but a strategic accomplishment. Speakers and writers actively work on
structuring their language to ensure that their message is clear and connected,
which is an integral part of effective communication.

3. **Social Dimension of Cognition**: This perspective also highlights that cognition,

including mental processing and the representations used in discourse production
and comprehension, has a social dimension. The way individuals think, process
information, and use language is influenced by social interactions. Additionally,
language itself is a product of social interaction and culture.

In summary, this approach recognizes that the properties of discourse are not
isolated abstract structures but are actively shaped and employed by language users
to achieve their communicative goals. It underscores the interplay between
language, cognition, and social interaction in the process of communication.

Topic

language Users and Context

7
 Saif Khan

The passage you've provided emphasizes that language users do not engage in text
and talk in isolation but rather as active participants within various social categories,
groups, and cultural contexts. Here are the key points:

1. **Social Categories and Identities**: Language users take on multiple roles and
identities as they engage in discourse. These roles can be based on factors such as
gender, race, age, socioeconomic status, profession, and cultural background. For
example, they may interact as women and men, members of different racial or ethnic
groups, or individuals from diverse social backgrounds.

2. **Complex Combinations**: Language users often navigate complex combinations

of these social and cultural roles and identities. This means that in any given
discourse situation, they may be drawing from multiple aspects of their identity and
social membership.

3. **Role Construction and Display**: Through their use of language in social

situations, language users actively construct and display these roles and identities.
They not only communicate information but also perform and reinforce their social
and cultural affiliations.

In essence, this perspective recognizes that discourse is deeply intertwined with the
social and cultural dimensions of identity. Language users actively engage with and
express their roles and identities in the diverse and complex web of social
interactions.

Para 2

The passage you've provided continues to illustrate how discourse is intricately

linked to the roles and identities of language users in specific social contexts. Here
are the key points:

1. **Roles and Addresses**: In the example you've mentioned, individuals like Mr.
Hyde, Mr. Rohrabacher, and the Speaker of the House are addressed and act within
specific roles, such as being addressed as "Mr." This conventional form reflects their
gender-based roles.

2. **Multiple Roles and Identities**: Mr. Rohrabacher, in particular, embodies multiple

roles and identities, including his role as the current speaker, his representation of
California, and his affiliation with the Republican Party, among others.

3. **Display and Construction**: Through what Mr. Rohrabacher says and implies in
his discourse, he actively displays and constructs himself as a conservative and as
an opponent of further civil rights legislation. This demonstrates how language use is

8
 Saif Khan

not only about conveying information but also about shaping and presenting one's
social and political identity.

In summary, this passage highlights how language users engage in discourse while
simultaneously enacting and displaying their various roles and identities within
complex social and political contexts. Their words and actions contribute to the
construction and representation of their identities and affiliations.

Para 3

The passage you've provided underscores the dynamic and context-dependent

nature of discourse. Here are the key points:

1. **Communication Settings**: Speakers engage in various communication settings,

and their actions are influenced by rules of language and culture, as well as their
knowledge and beliefs. Different settings have different goals, processes, and
outcomes.

2. **Indexical Nature**: Discourse is described as "indexical" because it often shows

or signals specific features relevant to its context. In other words, language and
communication are not static but adapt to the situation. For instance, formal address
forms in the House of Representatives indicate the formality of the legislative event.

3. **Manifestation and Shaping**: Discourse both reflects and shapes the

sociocultural context in which it occurs. It expresses the features of its context while
also influencing and molding those features. This bidirectional relationship between
language and context highlights how discourse is a dynamic and interactive process.

In summary, the passage emphasizes that discourse is not uniform but adapts to its
context, reflecting and shaping the sociocultural aspects of that context. It highlights
the indexical nature of language, where what is said and how it is said are closely
tied to the specific communication setting and its conventions.

Para 4

The examples you've provided highlight the complexity of context in discourse

analysis. Here are the key points:

1. **Contextual Parameters**: The context of discourse varies widely depending on

the type of communication. In informal conversations between friends, context might
be controlled by relatively few parameters like the setting, their shared knowledge,
and their roles as friends.

9
 Saif Khan

2. **Complex Contexts**: However, in more formal settings such as news reports,

parliamentary debates, or courtroom interactions, the analysis of context becomes
far more complex. These types of discourse require consideration of elaborate
social, political, and cultural conditions and their potential consequences.

3. **Multi-Layered Content Analysis**: The complexity of context implies that content

analysis, the study of what is said and written, is equally complex and multi-layered.
Analyzing discourse within intricate contexts means taking into account a wide range
of factors that influence how language is used and understood.

In essence, the passage underscores that the context of discourse is not one-size-
fits-all; it varies significantly depending on the nature of the discourse and the social,
political, and cultural dimensions of the situation. Consequently, analyzing and
understanding discourse often requires a nuanced and multi-layered approach that
considers these contextual factors.

Topic

Text and Talk

Para 1

The passage you provided highlights the emphasis on the interactional and practical
aspects of discourse. Here's an explanation:

1. **Interactional and Practical Focus**: The passage underscores that there is a

strong emphasis on the interactive and practical dimensions of discourse. In other
words, it suggests that the study of discourse is concerned with how people use
language in real interactions and practical situations.

2. **Language Use as Spoken Interaction**: It specifically mentions that this

emphasis is closely tied to language use in spoken interactions. This means that the
focus is on how language is used in verbal communication between people.

3. **Focus of the Volume**: The passage refers to the focus of the volume or the
book, suggesting that the book primarily concentrates on this interactional and
practical aspect of discourse.

4. **Discourse as Action**: The passage also mentions that much of the work on
discourse as action concentrates on conversation and dialogue. This implies that
scholars and researchers often study how discourse functions as a form of action
within conversations.

10
 Saif Khan

In summary, this passage highlights that the study of discourse, as discussed in the
volume, places a strong emphasis on understanding how language is used in real
interactions, particularly in spoken communication. It also mentions that this focus
often revolves around conversation and dialogue as key elements of discourse
analysis.
Para 2

This passage discusses the relationship between spoken and written forms of
communication in the context of social action. Here's an explanation:

1. **Written and Reading as Social Actions**: The passage suggests that writing and
reading are also forms of social action. This means that when we write and read, we
are engaged in social interactions, even though they are not face-to-face.

2. **Applicability to Written Texts**: It notes that much of what has been discussed
so far about discourse analysis applies to both spoken and written texts. In other
words, the principles of discourse analysis can be used to understand both types of
communication.

3. **Crucial Difference - Face-to-Face vs. Written Texts**: The passage highlights a

crucial difference between spoken and written communication. In spoken language
(except phone conversations), communication happens in face-to-face encounters.
Speakers interact immediately, taking turns and reacting to what the previous
speaker has said or done.

4. **Turn-Taking in E-mail 'Talk'**: However, the passage also mentions that online
e-mail 'talk' can blur the distinction between written and spoken discourse. In some
cases, even in written communication, there can be a form of turn-taking where
individuals respond to each other in an ongoing conversation-like manner, similar to
spoken discourse.

In summary, this passage acknowledges that both spoken and written forms of
communication are forms of social action. It points out the distinction that spoken
discourse typically involves immediate face-to-face interaction with turn-taking, while
written discourse can sometimes resemble spoken discourse, especially in the
context of online communication like e-mails.

Para 3

This passage discusses the differences between spontaneous spoken language and
written texts, particularly in terms of their characteristics and the process of
composition. Here's an explanation:

11
 Saif Khan

1. **Spontaneous Talk vs. Controlled Writing**: The passage highlights that

everyday spoken language, like casual conversations, tends to be spontaneous and
often exhibits characteristics such as pauses, errors, repetitions, false starts, and
overlaps. In contrast, written texts are usually more controlled and structured.

2. **Control in Writing**: It mentions that writers, especially when using computers,

have the ability to control and revise their text extensively. They can easily correct
and modify what they've written, which is not as readily achievable in spontaneous
spoken language.

3. **Linear vs. Composition**: The passage draws a distinction between spoken

language, which it describes as "linear" or "on-line" because it unfolds in real-time,
and the act of writing, which involves a combination of linear, on-line writing and
other forms of composition. Composition here refers to the process of planning,
revising, and structuring text, which is more common in written communication.

In summary, the passage points out that spoken language is often spontaneous and
exhibits various characteristics, while written texts are typically more controlled. It
also emphasizes that writing involves a combination of linear, on-the-spot writing and
more deliberate processes of composition, including revision and restructuring.

Para 4

This passage underscores the complexity of the distinction between spontaneous

and prepared forms of discourse and highlights that various genres of
communication can combine elements of both. Here's an explanation:

1. **Variability in Preparedness**: The passage acknowledges that the difference

between spontaneous and prepared discourse is not absolute. It provides examples
such as formal oral genres like academic speeches or lectures, as well as speeches
in legislative bodies like the House, which can be thoroughly prepared in advance
and then delivered as if reading from a written text.

2. **Spontaneity in Writing**: On the other hand, written forms of communication like

notes, letters, or emails may also exhibit spontaneity and elements of unprepared
writing, despite being written.

3. **Combination of Elements**: It emphasizes that many communication genres can

blend monologue (where one person speaks or writes) and dialogue (interaction
between multiple participants), as well as written and spoken parts. This blending
can result in varying degrees of spontaneity or preparation.

12
 Saif Khan

4. **Recording and Publication**: Additionally, it mentions that speeches in

legislative bodies, like those in the House, may be recorded and published as text in
the Congressional Record, blurring the lines between spoken and written discourse.

In summary, this passage highlights the fluid nature of discourse, where different
genres can combine elements of both spontaneity and preparation. It emphasizes
that discourse analysis should not be limited to just spontaneous conversation or
spoken language, as many genres exhibit a mix of written and spoken elements and
varying levels of spontaneity.

Topic

Hierarchies of Action

This passage delves into the multifaceted nature of discourse, highlighting that when
we write or speak, we are not merely engaging in the acts of writing and speaking
but also accomplishing various other communicative acts. Here's an explanation:

1. **Multifaceted Acts**: The passage suggests that when we communicate through

discourse, whether in writing or speaking, we are performing a range of acts beyond
the mere act of communication itself. These acts include making assertions,
accusations, responding to questions, defending positions, displaying politeness,
and employing strategies for positive self-presentation.

2. **Complex Hierarchy**: It emphasizes that these acts within discourse can form a
complex hierarchy. They exist at different levels of abstractness and generality,
indicating that discourse involves a layered structure where we might do one thing
(e.g., make an assertion) while simultaneously doing another (e.g., being polite).

3. **Simultaneous Actions**: The passage gives an example to illustrate this

complexity. It mentions that while speaking, an individual like Mr. Rohrabacher can
simultaneously engage in multiple acts, such as representing California, arguing
against a bill, and defending the position of the Republican Party. This demonstrates
how discourse can encompass multiple actions happening concurrently.

In summary, the passage underscores that discourse involves a rich tapestry of

communicative acts, and these acts can coexist at different levels of abstraction and
generality. When we engage in discourse, we are often accomplishing multiple
actions simultaneously, making it a multifaceted and intricate process of
communication.

Topic

13
 Saif Khan

Social Practices and Functions

Para 1

This passage discusses the concept of social practice in the context of discourse
analysis, emphasizing its broader societal implications. Here's an explanation:

1. **Social Practice in Discourse Analysis**: The passage introduces the idea that
the notion of social practice is more commonly employed in social and political
discourse analysis, rather than in conversation analysis. Social practice, in this
context, refers to the broader social dimension of discourse, extending beyond
individual acts of communication.

2. **Beyond Interpersonal Interaction**: It highlights that social practice

encompasses more than just the various acts accomplished by language users in
interpersonal interactions. For example, interactions between professionals like
doctors and patients or teachers and students, as well as formal settings like
parliamentary debates or courtroom sessions, are not just instances of institutional
dialogue. They are integral parts of more complex discursive and social practices
such as teaching, providing healthcare, legislation, and administering justice.

3. **Complexity of Social Practices**: The passage underscores that even informal,

everyday conversations can be part of complex social practices. It gives an example
of a conversation about immigrants, which may simultaneously contribute to the
broader social practice of communicating ethnic stereotypes. This practice, in turn,
may play a role in perpetuating larger societal issues, such as racism.

In summary, the passage highlights that the concept of social practice in discourse
analysis goes beyond individual acts of communication. It encompasses a broader
social dimension that includes institutional dialogues and complex societal issues,
illustrating the interconnectedness of discourse with larger social practices and
structures.

Para 2

This passage illustrates how a single act of discourse, in this case, Mr. Rohrabacher
arguing against the extension of civil rights legislation, can serve multiple purposes
and have broader implications. Here's an explanation:

1. **Multiple Goals**: The passage suggests that Mr. Rohrabacher's argument

against extending civil rights legislation serves several purposes simultaneously.
Firstly, it aligns with the interests of the business community, possibly by advocating

14
 Saif Khan

for business expansion. Secondly, it indirectly contributes to the perpetuation of

ethnic and gender inequality in the United States.

2. **Indirect Effects**: The argument has indirect effects because it influences the
societal context. By opposing civil rights legislation, it can potentially hinder efforts to
address ethnic and gender inequality, even if that's not the explicit intention.

3. **Positive Self-Presentation**: The passage also notes that individuals like Mr.
Rohrabacher may present themselves positively in the process. In this case, he
might position himself as someone concerned about the welfare of people from all
racial backgrounds who are trapped in poverty. This positive self-presentation can be
a way to garner support or justify one's position.

In summary, this passage highlights the complexity of discourse in social and

political contexts. It shows how a single act of discourse can serve multiple interests
and contribute to broader societal issues, all while being presented in a positive light
by the speaker. This illustrates the multifaceted nature of language and
communication in the realm of social and political discourse analysis.

Para 3

This passage emphasizes the dual focus of discourse analysis, which can examine
both the detailed interactions in talk (context) and also take a broader perspective to
explore the social, political, or cultural functions of discourse within various contexts.
Here's an explanation:

1. **Interactive Detail vs. Broader Perspective**: The passage suggests that

discourse analysis can have a dual focus. On one hand, it can delve into the intricate
details of interactive talk, examining the context within which communication occurs.
This involves looking closely at the structure and dynamics of conversation.

2. **Social, Political, and Cultural Functions**: On the other hand, it can also adopt a
broader perspective to explore the functions of discourse in social, political, or
cultural contexts. This means studying how discourse serves specific purposes or
functions within institutions, groups, or society as a whole.

3. **Hierarchy of Functions**: The passage introduces the idea of a hierarchy of

functions. It illustrates this concept by explaining that an assertion made in a
courtroom, at the appropriate moment, can function as a verdict. This verdict, in turn,
serves the function of imparting justice or injustice within a specific legal system.
This demonstrates how one act of discourse can have cascading functions within a
hierarchy.

15
 Saif Khan

In summary, this passage highlights that discourse analysis can encompass both
detailed analysis of talk and the examination of broader social, political, or cultural
functions within various contexts. It also introduces the concept of a hierarchy of
functions, showing how discourse can serve multiple purposes at different levels of
abstraction and generality within society and institutions.

Para 4

This passage underscores the interconnectedness of various levels and functions

within discourse and highlights the importance of recognizing that language users
are simultaneously engaged in multiple actions. Here's an explanation:

1. **Simultaneous Actions**: The passage emphasizes that language users engage

in multiple actions at the same time, often without being fully aware of it. For
example, when "doing justice," individuals are not limited to the formal aspects of
trials but also perform a range of actions such as taking turns, asking questions,
making accusations, and using a legal style.

2. **Integral Components**: It points out that the more detailed actions within
complex social practices are themselves social acts. These actions play a crucial
role in accomplishing higher-level social practices. In essence, they are integral
components of the larger social framework.

3. **Integrated Social Approach**: The passage argues for an integrated social

approach to discourse analysis, where all levels and functions are considered
equally relevant and social. It discourages excluding any level as less significant or
less social, recognizing that they all contribute to the complexity of social practices.

In summary, this passage stresses the interplay between various levels and
functions within discourse, highlighting that language users perform multiple actions
simultaneously. It emphasizes that even the most detailed interactions are social
acts in their own right, and an integrated approach to discourse analysis should
acknowledge the significance of all these levels and functions within the broader
social context.

Para 5

This passage emphasizes that both local and global aspects of discourse play a role
in the accomplishment of social practices. Here's an explanation:

1. **Local and Global Aspects**: The passage highlights that when analyzing social
discourse, you can examine both the local or detailed aspects (micro-level) and the

16
 Saif Khan

broader or more global aspects (macro-level). These include details of individual

interactions between social actors (micro) and entire institutions or groups and what
they "do" (macro).

2. **Contribution to Social Structure**: It suggests that both micro and macro aspects
of discourse contribute to the production and reproduction (or challenge) of social
structure. In other words, the way people interact at the micro level can have
implications for larger social practices and structures.

3. **Example of Mr. Rohrabacher's Speech**: The passage provides an example by

stating that at the micro level, Mr. Rohrabacher's speech constitutes a debate within
the House of Representatives. This debate, in turn, is part of the larger acts of
legislation and government at the macro level.

4. **Focus on Interrelations**: It notes that while different researchers may choose to

focus on either the micro or macro levels of discourse and social organization,
modern social discourse analysis increasingly examines the interrelations between
these local and global properties of social text and talk. This approach recognizes
the interconnectedness of various levels in understanding social practices.

In summary, the passage highlights that both micro and macro aspects of discourse
are important for understanding social practices, and modern discourse analysis
often focuses on exploring the interrelationships between these levels to gain a more
comprehensive understanding of how discourse contributes to social structure and
organization.

Main topic

Aims

Para 1

Indeed, the passage emphasizes a crucial dimension of discourse analysis,

highlighting that it should be studied not only in terms of its linguistic form, meaning,
and mental processes but also as social structures and generative processes of
interaction and social practice. This comprehensive approach explores how
discourse functions within specific contexts, societies, and cultures.

Para 2

The passage indicates that the following chapters in the book will provide detailed
insights into various approaches to studying discourse in society. To prepare readers
for these chapters, the passage mentions that it will go beyond the initial overview

17
 Saif Khan

provided earlier and introduce fundamental concepts used in the sociocultural

analysis of discourse. This includes concepts, presuppositions, concerns, and aims
related to the study of discourse, even those approaches that may not be covered in
the current volume. Essentially, it sets the stage for a deeper exploration of
discourse analysis within a sociocultural context.

Para 3

The point of this conceptual analysis is to discuss notions that arc needed to
establish ,!YQl@{a!Jinb between discourse and society. We may of course simply
follow common sense ancf assumeUrat "discourse is a form or action and interaction
and hence declare discourse to be social. But the few ellamples briefly referred to
above suggest that the links between discourse and society .;13_much..motc
complex..._~ need thcoretical_aQalysi's_ 10 their own right. The concepts I have
selected for further analysis have been chosen because they regularly appear in
several chapters of this volume and in many other social approaches to discourse.

Para 4

Sub headings (4)

1- Action

The passage raises important questions about the nature of action and how it relates
to the definition of discourse as action and a form of social interaction. Here's an
exploration of these questions:

1. **What Is Action?**: The passage prompts us to consider what constitutes an

"action." In the context of discourse analysis, an action typically refers to something
that individuals do or perform through language, such as making assertions, asking
questions, giving commands, and so on.

2. **Action in Discourse**: It also raises the question of how these actions manifest
within discourse. Discourse is considered a form of action because when people
engage in communication, they are actively doing something – conveying
information, persuading, seeking clarification, and more.

3. **Social Interaction**: The passage hints at the idea that discourses are a form of
social interaction. In essence, when individuals engage in discourse, they are
interacting with others through language. This interaction is social because it takes
place within a societal context and involves communication with others.

18
 Saif Khan

4. **Defining Social Interaction**: To fully understand why discourse is considered a

form of social interaction, one needs to consider the social context within which
communication occurs. Social interaction involves individuals interacting with others
and is shaped by societal norms, values, and structures.

In summary, the passage encourages us to reflect on the nature of action and how it
is expressed within discourse. It also suggests that discourses are considered a form
of social interaction because they involve individuals actively communicating within a
social context, shaping and being shaped by societal factors.

2- context

The passage raises questions about the concept of context in social discourse
analysis and highlights its importance as the interface between discourse as action
and social situations or structures. Here's an exploration of these questions:

1. **Studying Discourse in Context**: Social discourse analysis often focuses on

studying discourse within its context. This means examining how language and
communication interact with the social environment in which they occur. Context
provides the backdrop against which discourse takes place.

2. **Context Often Overlooked**: The passage points out that, despite being
frequently used, the notion of context is not always analyzed in as much detail as the
text and talk themselves. This suggests that context is sometimes taken for granted
or not thoroughly explored, even though it plays a critical role in understanding
discourse.

3. **Interface with Action and Social Structures**: Context serves as the interface
between discourse as an action and the broader social situations and structures. It
connects what is said or written with the social environment in which it is said or
written.

4. **Defining Context**: The passage prompts us to consider what exactly

constitutes context. In essence, context refers to the circumstances, conditions, and
factors that surround a particular discourse event. This includes the physical setting,
social norms, cultural background, participants' identities, and more.

In summary, the passage underscores the significance of context in social discourse

analysis and raises questions about how precisely context is defined and analyzed.
Context acts as the bridge between language as action and the social context in
which communication takes place, and it plays a crucial role in shaping the meaning
and interpretation of discourse

19
 Saif Khan

3- Power

This passage highlights the importance of the concept of power in the study of
discourse and group relations in society. Here's an explanation:

1. **Power in Group Relations**: The passage acknowledges that both action and
discourse contexts involve participants who belong to different social groups. Within
these group dynamics, power is a central concept. Power represents the ability of
one group or individual to influence or control others, and it often plays a crucial role
in shaping group interactions and relations.

2. **Power's Influence on Text and Talk**: The passage suggests that power is a
pervasive and influential element in society. It can impact both text (written
communication) and talk (spoken communication) and vice versa. Power dynamics
can shape the way language is used, the decisions made in communication, and the
outcomes of interactions.

3. **Importance in Critical Approaches**: The passage notes that power is

particularly important for critical approaches to discourse analysis. These
approaches aim to uncover and critique power imbalances and social injustices
within discourse. Analyzing power relationships within discourse helps shed light on
how language can be used to reinforce or challenge societal inequalities.

In summary, the passage underscores the significance of the concept of power in

understanding group relations, discourse, and societal dynamics. It emphasizes that
power is a fundamental notion, especially for critical approaches to discourse
analysis, as it can greatly influence text, talk, and broader social structures.

4- Ideology

This passage discusses the relationship between ideology, discourse, and society,
highlighting how ideologies serve as the cognitive counterpart to power and play a
significant role in shaping discourse and managing social dynamics. Here's an
explanation:

1. **Role of Ideologies**: Ideologies are mentioned as cognitive frameworks that

establish connections between discourse and society. They serve as the cognitive
counterpart to power, meaning they influence how individuals perceive, use, and
respond to language in social contexts.

2. **Monitoring Discourse**: Ideologies act as monitors of how language users

engage in discourse, particularly within various groups or organizations. They are
concerned with the discourse of dominant, dominated, or competing groups, and

20
 Saif Khan

they attempt to realize social interests and manage social conflicts through
language.

3. **Reproduction of Ideologies**: Discourse also plays a role in the reproduction of

ideologies within a group. In other words, the way language is used can contribute to
the maintenance and perpetuation of a group's ideologies, whether those ideologies
reinforce existing power structures or challenge them.

In summary, this passage emphasizes the role of ideologies in linking discourse with
society. Ideologies influence how language is used within social groups and
organizations, aiming to achieve social interests and manage conflicts.
Simultaneously, discourse is instrumental in the reproduction of these ideologies
within the group, contributing to the maintenance of social beliefs and values.

Para 5

This passage acknowledges that while concepts like power and ideology are
fundamental to understanding the relationship between discourse and society, there
are many other important notions that also relate to this complex interface. It
mentions various properties and dimensions of society that define how discourses
are social, including groups, roles, knowledge, rules, norms, goals, organizations,
and institutions, among others.

The passage also acknowledges that the literature on these fundamental notions is
extensive and cannot be fully covered in this brief overview. Instead, it highlights
some relevant features and suggests that readers can find more theoretical details,
discourse examples, and references in the chapters that follow in the book. In
essence, it encourages readers to explore these concepts in greater depth in the
subsequent chapters.

Main Topic

Action

This passage draws attention to the frequent use of the concepts of "act," "action,"
and "interaction" in the volume. It suggests that while these concepts may seem
straightforward in everyday language, they become theoretically complex when
examined more closely within the context of discourse analysis. In essence, it
highlights the need for a deeper and more nuanced understanding of these concepts
to engage in meaningful discourse analysis.

Topic

21
 Saif Khan

Intentionality

Para 1

This passage discusses the concept of actions and highlights the nuances and
complexities surrounding what can be considered actions. Here's an explanation:

1. **Intuitive Understanding of Actions**: Actions are typically thought of as things

that people do. In everyday language, actions are associated with purposeful,
intentional, and observable behaviors, such as walking, talking, or eating.

2. **Non-Action Behaviors**: However, the passage points out that people engage in
many activities that we might hesitate to label as actions. These include involuntary
actions like falling, mental activities like dreaming, or perceptual activities like seeing.
These actions may not fit the traditional understanding of actions because they can
be automatic or non-intentional.

3. **Non-Active Social, Moral, or Legal Acts**: Conversely, the passage mentions

that in some situations, individuals can socially, morally, or legally "act" without
physically doing something. For example, staying silent during a conversation,
remaining seated, or refraining from smoking can all be considered acts in specific
contexts. These actions involve a conscious choice to refrain from certain behaviors.

In summary, the passage highlights the ambiguity and variability in what is

considered an action. While actions are often associated with purposeful behaviors,
there are instances where non-intentional or non-observable activities are also
considered actions. Additionally, certain behaviors, like refraining from action, can be
seen as acts in particular social, moral, or legal contexts.

Para 2

This passage delves into the idea that "doings" or "activities" are often referred to as
"acts" when they are intentional, shedding light on the criteria for labeling something
as an act. Here's an explanation:

1. **Intentionality as a Criterion**: The passage suggests that the term "acts" is

typically reserved for actions that are intentional. In other words, when individuals
perform actions with a specific purpose or intention in mind, those actions are more
likely to be labeled as "acts."

2. **Examples of Non-Acts**: It contrasts intentional actions with events like falling

and dreaming, which are often beyond our control and not done on purpose. These
events are usually not considered acts because they lack intentionality.

22
 Saif Khan

3. **Actions with Goals**: The passage also highlights that most actions are carried
out with the goal of achieving something else. These actions have a purpose or
point, which gives them meaning and makes them appear purposeful. This goal-
directed aspect is what often characterizes actions as intentional.

In summary, the passage suggests that intentionality plays a significant role in

determining whether an activity is referred to as an "act." Actions are typically
labeled as such when they are carried out intentionally and have a specific purpose
or goal associated with them, setting them apart from events that occur without
conscious intent.

Para 3

This analysis confirms that discourse is indeed a form of action, as previously

claimed. Here's a breakdown of the reasoning:

1. **Intentional and Purposeful**: Discourse, which includes speaking, writing,

reading, and listening, is described as intentional, controlled, and purposeful human
activity. People typically engage in these forms of communication with specific
intentions or goals in mind. For example, we speak to convey information or express
thoughts, write to communicate ideas, read to acquire knowledge, and listen to
understand or respond.

2. **Not Typically Accidental**: Discourse activities are not usually accidental or

random. They are deliberate actions that individuals consciously undertake to
achieve certain objectives through language.

3. **Special Cases**: The passage acknowledges that there may be special cases,
such as speaking in one's sleep or during hypnosis, where discourse occurs without
full conscious control. In such instances, individuals may not be held responsible for
their actions because they are not fully aware of what they are saying or doing.

In summary, this analysis reinforces the idea that discourse is a purposeful and
intentional form of action, distinguishing it from accidental or involuntary activities. It
also recognizes the existence of special cases where discourse may occur without
conscious control, but these cases are exceptions rather than the norm.

Para 4

This passage further elaborates on how higher-level acts accomplished through

speaking or writing, such as asserting, accusing, promising, and many others, are
typically intentional and purposeful forms of communication. Here's an explanation:

23
 Saif Khan

1. **Intentional and Purposeful Acts**: The passage emphasizes that actions like
asserting, asking, accusing, promising, etc., which are carried out through words, are
usually performed intentionally and purposefully. People use language to achieve
specific communicative goals, such as conveying information, making a point, or
persuading others.

2. **Diversity of Communicative Acts**: While these communicative acts may have

different properties and serve various purposes, they all involve using language as a
means of communication to convey intentions and achieve specific objectives.

3. **Social Relevance of Intentions and Purposes**: The passage notes that

intentions and purposes are often considered as mental representations, but they
are socially relevant because they manifest themselves through social activity.
Others interpret these actions and ascribe intentions and purposes to the speaker or
writer. In this way, individuals are constructed or defined as rational beings who
engage in social interactions, and their communicative acts contribute to how they
are perceived by others.

In summary, this passage underscores that many higher-level acts accomplished

through language are intentional and purposeful forms of communication. These acts
may vary in nature and purpose, but they are all considered communicative acts and
are socially relevant because they contribute to how individuals are perceived and
defined by others in social interactions.

Topic

Perspective

Para 1

This passage delves into the complexities surrounding the intentionality and control
of actions carried out through language, particularly in the case of insults. Here's an
explanation:

1. **Intentionality and Insults**: The passage highlights that while many

communicative actions are intentional and purposeful, there are instances, like
insults, where the intention behind the action may be unclear or disputed. For the
recipient, an insult is perceived as a communicative act if they believe the speaker's
purpose was to insult. However, the speaker might vehemently deny such intent.

2. **Differing Interpretations**: The example of insults illustrates how the perception

of an action can vary between the speaker and the recipient. While the recipient
interprets the utterance as an insult, the speaker may vehemently disagree, leading

24
 Saif Khan

to a social conflict where both parties hold contrasting views regarding the intention
behind the language used.

3. **Discursive Doings and Recipients**: The passage introduces the idea that in
some cases, a communicative act may be considered an act only for the recipients,
especially when the speaker denies having intended that specific action. This
illustrates the ambiguity and potential for disagreement in interpreting the purpose
behind language use.

4. **Example of Mr. Rohrabacher**: The passage provides an example with Mr.

Rohrabacher, suggesting that his speech may be interpreted differently by various
members of the audience. While some may see it as contributing to gender and
ethnic inequality, he may strongly reject such an interpretation, highlighting the
potential for conflicting perspectives on the intention behind discourse.

In summary, this passage explores the challenges of determining intentionality and

control in communicative acts, particularly in cases like insults, where the
interpretation of the action can differ between the speaker and the recipient, leading
to potential conflicts and disagreements regarding intent.

Para 2

This passage highlights the importance of perspective in analyzing actions carried

out through language, particularly from the viewpoint of the speaker and the
recipient. Here's an explanation:

1. **Perspective of the Speaker**: From the speaker's perspective, actions are

associated with awareness, consciousness, intentionality, and purposes. In this view,
"real" action is often linked to what the speaker intends and consciously does.

2. **Perspective of the Recipient**: However, from the recipient's perspective, what

matters are what is said and its social consequences. The recipient interprets actions
based on what is heard or observed, regardless of the speaker's underlying
intentions. The recipient ascribes intentions to the speaker and defines them as
social actors based on this interpretation.

3. **Assigning Intentions**: Just as language users assign meanings to discourses,

they also assign intentions to other people based on their interpretation of the
speaker's words and actions. This process of ascribing intentions is fundamental to
understanding individuals as social actors.

4. **Focus of Social Discourse Analysis**: The passage points out that social
discourse analysis often focuses less on the speaker and their non-observable
intentions and more on how discursive actions can be reasonably inferred or

25
 Saif Khan

interpreted by others. In this analysis, the perspective and interpretation of the

recipient(s) take precedence. Discursive activity is considered socially meaningful if it
has discernible social consequences, as perceived by the recipients.

In summary, this passage underscores that the analysis of actions in discourse

depends on the perspective taken, whether from the viewpoint of the speaker or the
recipient. Social discourse analysis often emphasizes how discursive actions are
interpreted by others and how they lead to social consequences, emphasizing the
perspective and interpretation of the recipient as a central focus.

Para 3

This passage highlights the complexity of human actions involving discourse,

emphasizing that individuals may engage in actions with language that they are not
fully aware of, do not intend, or cannot control. Here's an explanation:

1. **Unintentional Actions**: People often use language in ways that are not
intentionally or consciously planned. These actions may occur automatically,
subconsciously, or as a result of habitual communication patterns.

2. **Actions Interpreted by Others**: Additionally, actions carried out through

language can be interpreted as such by others, even if the speaker did not intend
them as actions. The interpretation of actions may vary depending on the
perspective of the recipient.

3. **Responsibility for Unintentional Acts**: The passage notes that individuals may
still bear responsibility for some of these less intentional acts. This responsibility
arises because individuals could or should have been aware of the possible social
consequences of their words or actions, even if they did not actively intend those
consequences.

4. **Example of Mr. Rohrabacher**: The passage provides an example involving Mr.

Rohrabacher, suggesting that he may deny that his speech contributes to social
inequality. However, it might be challenging for him to argue against the fact that the
defeat of a civil rights bill could make it harder to combat gender and ethnic
discrimination in the U.S. This illustrates how discourse can have unintended social
consequences.

In summary, the passage emphasizes that discourse-related actions can be

complex, involving both intentional and unintentional aspects. Individuals may still
bear responsibility for unintentional acts if they could have reasonably foreseen their
social consequences. It also provides an example illustrating the potential social
impact of discourse.

26
 Saif Khan

Para 4

This passage emphasizes the importance of speakers considering the implications

and consequences of their words and actions when using talk and text. It suggests
the following points:

1. **Expectation of Thoughtfulness**: Speakers are expected to think about the likely

implications and consequences of their language use on others. Being thoughtful in
communication involves considering the potential impact of one's words and actions.

2. **Responsibility and Norms**: Responsibility for discursive actions is influenced by

norms and values related to how thoughtful individuals should be in their
communication. These norms may vary, but they play a role in shaping how
individuals approach their use of language.

3. **Variable Intentions and Purposes**: The passage acknowledges that intentions

and purposes ascribed to discourse can vary in scope. Some consequences of
language use are clearly intended, purposeful, and under the control of the speaker.
However, others may be less predictable or less under the speaker's control.

In summary, the passage underscores that individuals should be considerate of the

potential impact of their language use on others. Responsibility for discursive actions
is influenced by societal norms about thoughtfulness in communication. Intentions
and purposes in discourse can range from being clearly intended and controlled to
being less predictable or unintentional.

Topic

Implications, Consequences and Components

Para 1

This passage reflects on the author's own intention in explaining the theory of action
to readers and how it fits into academic discourse and teaching. Here's an
explanation:

1. **Intentional Explanation**: The author acknowledges that they are intentionally

explaining something to their readers. This act of explanation is a purposeful part of
academic discourse and teaching. The author's intention is to educate others and
contribute to the social reproduction of knowledge, which is a common aim in
academic writing.

27
 Saif Khan

2. **Awareness in Language Use**: The passage notes that when people write or
speak, they are typically aware of the immediate or surface-level actions they are
taking, such as explaining a concept. However, they may not always be fully aware
of all the implications or consequences of their language use.

3. **Need for Thought and Analysis**: Understanding the full implications or

consequences of language use may require deeper thought or even sociological
analysis. It suggests that language users may need to consider the broader societal
and social context in which their discourse operates to grasp the full scope of their
actions.

In summary, the passage highlights the author's intention to educate and contribute
to knowledge through their writing. It also points out that individuals may not always
be aware of the complete implications of their language use and may require
additional thought or analysis to understand the broader consequences of their
actions in discourse.

Para 2

This passage extends the discussion to encompass not only the consequences of
discourse for recipients and their broader societal implications but also its
components. Here's an explanation:

1. **Consequences for Recipients**: The passage reiterates that just as discourse

has consequences for recipients and broader societal implications, the components
of discourse are also significant in this regard.

2. **Discourse as Action**: It emphasizes that if discourse is considered an action,

then the production or comprehension of various elements within discourse, such as
sentences, words, style, rhetoric, or argumentation, should also be understood as
actions in their own right.

3. **Types of Acts**: The passage introduces different types of acts involved in

discourse. These include illocutionary acts (or speech acts) like assertions and
promises, locutionary or graphical acts related to the physical production of speech
or writing, and propositional acts related to the meaning conveyed when speaking or
writing.

4. **Reference to Shoshana Blum-Kulka**: The passage mentions that readers can

refer to Chapter 2, Volume 2, by Shoshana Blum-Kulka for more detailed information
about these different acts and their roles in discourse.

28
 Saif Khan

In summary, this passage emphasizes that discourse involves various acts, including
those related to the production and comprehension of language components. To
understand discourse as social action, it's important to consider not only speech acts
but also the acts related to the physical and propositional aspects of speaking and
writing.

Para 3

This passage raises important questions about the nature of linguistic components
like pronunciation, syntax, and semantics within the framework of discourse as
action. Here's an explanation:

1. **Accent and Linguistic Components**: The passage questions whether "having

an accent" should be considered an intentional act or something that occurs naturally
to individuals, even if they can consciously modify their accent in some situations. It
also extends this question to other linguistic components like word order, word
selection, coherence establishment, and conversational turn-taking.

2. **Variability in Intentionality**: The passage highlights that when breaking down

overall discursive acts into their components, not all of these components are
necessarily intentional. While individuals may consciously choose specific linguistic
elements in some situations, there are instances where these linguistic activities
become automatic or less consciously controlled.

3. **Levels of Intentionality**: It introduces the idea that in the analysis of discourse

as action, there may be a range of intentionality levels for different linguistic or
mental activities. Some actions may be highly intentional and purposeful, while
others may be more automatic and below conscious control.

In summary, the passage underscores the complexity of linguistic components within

discourse. It questions whether all linguistic activities should be regarded as
intentional acts and suggests that some components may be more automatic and
operate below the level of conscious control. This highlights the need to consider
different levels of intentionality when analyzing discourse as action.

Topic

Interaction

Para 1

29
 Saif Khan

This passage delves into the complexities of defining interaction among individuals
within the framework of discourse. Here's an explanation:

1. **Defining Interaction**: The passage raises questions about when the actions of
several people can be defined as interaction rather than as separate and unrelated
acts. It prompts consideration of whether intentional interaction with a purpose is
required. Must individuals be aware of each other, hear or see each other, or
understand each other's actions to engage in interaction?

2. **Mutual Knowledge**: It highlights the challenge of understanding what others

want or intend and how mutual knowledge is managed in interaction. Cooperation
between individuals and the rules or criteria for such cooperation are also
questioned.

3. **Initiating Interaction**: The passage questions whether a response from another

person is necessary to initiate interaction or if, for example, a simple greeting
constitutes interaction even if not reciprocated.

4. **Coordination and Timing**: It raises questions about how individuals coordinate

their actions in interaction and when interaction begins or ends. Is it constrained to
the same situation and a similar time frame, or can it extend over longer periods?

5. **Example of Mr. Rohrabacher**: The passage provides an illustrative example

with Mr. Rohrabacher to emphasize the potential complexities. If all his hearers walk
out while he continues to speak, questions arise about whether his speech still
qualifies as a contribution to a debate and whether a session of the House is still
considered ongoing.

In summary, this passage highlights the intricacies of defining interaction in social

discourse, considering factors such as intention, awareness, mutual understanding,
cooperation, timing, and continuity. It illustrates the challenges in delineating the
boundaries of interaction in various social contexts.

Para 2

This passage acknowledges the complexity of the questions raised regarding

discourse as a form of social action and interaction. Here's an explanation:

1. **Complexity of Notions**: The passage recognizes that some of the familiar

notions discussed in the book may require in-depth analysis from conceptual,
cognitive, social, and cultural perspectives. These complex questions cannot be fully
addressed in an introductory book.

30
 Saif Khan

2. **Unanswered Questions**: It notes that the questions raised in the previous

section are left unanswered in this context due to their complexity. These questions
encompass various aspects of how actions and interactions are defined within
discourse.

3. **Challenging Common Sense**: The passage concludes by emphasizing that the

initial claim that discourse is a form of social action and interaction, while seemingly
straightforward, actually involves a great deal of complexity beyond what common
sense might suggest.

In summary, the passage highlights that the analysis of discourse as social action
and interaction goes beyond common-sense understanding and requires deeper
exploration from multiple analytical perspectives. It acknowledges the limitations of
providing comprehensive answers to these complex questions in an introductory
book.

Topic

Context

Para 1

This passage introduces the notion of "context" and highlights that its common-
sense usage may not fully capture its complexity. Here's an explanation:

1. **Common-Sense Understanding of Context**: The passage begins by noting

that, in everyday life, the concept of context is often intuitively understood as
referring to the environment or circumstances surrounding an event, action, or
discourse. It is seen as something necessary to understand these elements properly.

2. **Functions of Context**: Context is described as something that functions as

background, setting, surroundings, conditions, or consequences. It plays a role in
shaping the meaning and interpretation of events, actions, or discourse.

In summary, the passage introduces the concept of context and provides an initial
understanding of it as something that surrounds and influences events, actions, or
discourse. However, it suggests that the concept of context can be more complex
than its common-sense usage implies.

Para 2

This passage emphasizes the critical role of contexts in the study of discourse as
action and interaction. Here's an explanation:

31
 Saif Khan

1. **Importance of Context**: The passage highlights that in the study of discourse,

contexts are of utmost importance. It distinguishes between abstract discourse
analysis and social discourse analysis, with the latter emphasizing the consideration
of context.

2. **Context Parameters**: It mentions that context involves various parameters,

including participants, their roles, purposes, and properties of the setting, such as
time and place. These context features are essential for the production,
understanding, and analysis of discourse.

3. **Situated Discourse**: The passage introduces the concept of "situated"

discourse. In social discourse analysis, discourse is described as taking place or
being accomplished within a specific social situation. This means that discourse is
closely tied to and influenced by the context in which it occurs.

In summary, the passage underlines that social discourse analysis focuses on the
interplay between discourse and context. Discourse is considered situated, meaning
it occurs within a specific social situation, and its meaning and interpretation are
influenced by the context features such as participants, roles, purposes, and setting.

Para 3

This passage provides a nuanced understanding of the properties of a social

situation that constitute the context of discourse. Here's an explanation:

1. **Crucial Elements of Context**: The passage highlights that human participants

and certain action roles, such as being speakers and recipients of verbal acts, are
crucial elements of the context of discourse. These elements play a fundamental role
in shaping how discourse is produced and interpreted.

2. **Relevance of Participant Properties**: It mentions that some properties of

participants, such as their gender, age, or social status (having power, authority, or
prestige), are often relevant to discourse but not always. These properties are
considered contextual because they can influence various aspects of text and talk,
including language choices, topics, and forms of politeness.

3. **Provisional Definition of Context**: The passage offers a provisional definition of

context as the structure of those properties of the social situation that are
systematically relevant for discourse. In other words, context comprises the aspects
of the social situation that consistently impact how discourse is structured and
understood.

32
 Saif Khan

In summary, the passage clarifies that not all properties of a social situation are part
of the context of discourse. Contextual elements include human participants, their
action roles, and other relevant properties that systematically influence the
production and interpretation of text and talk.

Topic

Participants

Para 1

This passage delves into the notion of contextual relevance and highlights that
certain situational features consistently impact discourse, while others do not. Here's
an explanation:

1. **Relevance of Situational Features**: The passage acknowledges that there are

social and cultural variations in what is considered contextually relevant. It suggests
that some situational features are consistently relevant, while others are seldom or
never relevant.

2. **Examples of Relevant Features**: It provides examples of situational features

that are often relevant, such as gender, age, class, education, social position,
ethnicity, and profession of participants. These features can significantly influence
how discourse is produced and understood, as demonstrated in various chapters of
the book.

3. **Examples of Irrelevant Features**: Conversely, the passage mentions features

that are seldom or never relevant, such as height, weight, eye color, or having a
driver's license. These aspects of a person's identity or situation do not
systematically impact discourse.

4. **Role-Based Contextual Conditions**: It emphasizes that certain social roles and

relations are often relevant to discourse, such as being a friend or foe, powerful or
powerless, dominant or dominated. Understanding these roles is crucial for
comprehending the dynamics of text and talk.

5. **Mr. Rohrabacher's Example**: The passage illustrates the importance of

contextual conditions by referring to Mr. Rohrabacher's speech. To understand and
analyze his speech, knowledge of his roles as a member of the House of

33
 Saif Khan

Representatives, a member of the Republican Party, and a delegate from California

is essential. These roles provide the context for specific properties of his discourse.

In summary, the passage clarifies that contextual relevance varies, with some
situational features consistently affecting discourse, while others do not. It highlights
the significance of understanding the roles and positions of participants as contextual
conditions for analyzing discourse effectively.

Para 2

This passage underscores the interplay between participant categories and the
concept of context in the study of discourse. Here's an explanation:

1. **Participant Categories and Context**: The passage highlights that participant

categories, such as roles and identities, are often considered essential components
of both theoretical definitions and common-sense understandings of context. People
adapt their language and interpretation of others' language based on their roles and
the roles of others.

2. **Purpose of Context Analysis**: It emphasizes that the purpose of context

analysis is to examine how discourse structures are influenced by the structures of
context. In other words, the way people speak and interpret language is shaped by
their roles and identities within a given context. Context analysis seeks to explain
discourse in terms of these contextual structures.

3. **Reciprocal Relationship**: The passage also points out that there is a reciprocal
relationship between context and discourse. Not only does context influence
discourse, but discourse can also shape and change the context. This dynamic
interaction highlights the complexity of studying context in the context of discourse
analysis.

4. **Understanding Discourse**: Finally, it concludes by emphasizing that the study

of contexts is not an isolated pursuit but is undertaken to better understand
discourse itself. Context analysis is essential for comprehending how language
functions and is structured in social interactions.

In summary, the passage emphasizes the intertwined nature of participant

categories and context in the study of discourse. It highlights the role of context
analysis in explaining how discourse is influenced by contextual structures and vice
versa, ultimately leading to a deeper understanding of language use in social
settings.

34
 Saif Khan

Topic

Setting

Para 1

This passage acknowledges that context includes various "setting" dimensions of a

social situation, such as time, place, speaker position, and other unique aspects of
the physical environment. Here's an explanation:

1. **Setting Dimensions in Context**: The passage recognizes that context must

encompass several dimensions related to the setting of a social situation. These
setting dimensions help provide a more complete understanding of the context in
which discourse occurs.

2. **Examples of Setting Dimensions**: It mentions specific setting dimensions,

including time and place. In social discourse, the timing of events and the physical
location can significantly influence how discourse unfolds. For example, certain
discourse genres, like meetings, sessions, or classes, are often scheduled for
specific time slots, which affects their structure and content.

3. **Example of Time Allocation**: The passage provides an example involving Mr.

Rohrabacher, where he is allocated a precise three-minute time slot by the previous
speaker. This illustrates how the element of time is an essential aspect of context in
this specific discourse situation.

In summary, the passage highlights that context encompasses not only participant
categories and roles but also various setting dimensions, including time, place, and
other aspects of the physical environment. These dimensions are crucial for
understanding how discourse is structured and influenced within a social situation.

Para 2

This passage explores the role of location, position, and deictic expressions in
understanding context within discourse. Here's an explanation:

1. **Participant Position and Status**: The passage highlights that in certain social
situations, some participants occupy more prominent positions, such as teachers,
lecturers, judges, or Speakers of the House. These individuals often use specific
verbs, pronouns, or expressions to signal their elevated status or authority. For
example, a judge in a U.S. court might use the phrase "Please approach the bench!"
to address attorneys, indicating their position of authority.

35
 Saif Khan

2. **Deictic Expressions**: It mentions deictic expressions of place and time, such as

"today," "tomorrow," "here," and "there." These expressions rely on contextual
parameters like location and time to be interpretable. For instance, the meaning of
"here" or "there" depends on the specific place within the context.

In summary, the passage underscores how participant positions and deictic

expressions related to place and time are integral to understanding context in
discourse. These contextual cues help clarify the roles, authority, and spatial-
temporal aspects of social interactions.

Para 3

This passage emphasizes the significance of the setting or environment in which

discourse takes place, highlighting aspects like privacy, formality, and institutionality.
Here's an explanation:

1. **Private vs. Public Settings**: The passage distinguishes between private and
public settings. Discourse can occur in private spaces like homes or offices, as well
as in public spaces like courts, hospitals, or classrooms. The choice of setting can
have a significant impact on the nature of the discourse.

2. **Formality and Institutionality**: It also discusses the formality and institutionality

of discourse. Some discourses are informal, while others are highly institutionalized,
involving specific rules and conventions. For example, legal accusations are legally
valid only when presented in a court of law. Similarly, the discourse of doctors and
teachers may be specialized and may not be easily understood outside their
respective institutional contexts.

3. **Link Between Environment and Discourse Genre**: The passage underscores

the close relationship between institutional environments and the discourse genres
that occur within them. Institutional settings interact with the structures of text and
talk, influencing how discourse unfolds and is structured.

4. **Example of Mr. Rohrabacher**: The passage provides an example involving Mr.

Rohrabacher's speech, emphasizing that it is considered part of a parliamentary
debate when delivered on the floor of the House. This illustrates how the institutional
setting is integral to the nature of the discourse.

In summary, the passage highlights the role of the setting, whether private or public,
informal or institutional, in shaping and defining discourse genres. The specific
environment in which discourse occurs can significantly impact its structure, rules,
and comprehensibility.

36
 Saif Khan

Topic

Props

Para 1

This passage delves into the role of institutional contexts and their characteristic
objects or props in formal discourse. Here's an explanation:

1. **Typical Props in Institutional Contexts**: Institutional contexts, such as

courtrooms, classrooms, and newsrooms, are often associated with specific props or
objects that are relevant for formal text or talk. These objects can include uniforms,
flags, specialized furniture, instruments, and more. These props contribute to the
distinctive nature of discourse within these contexts.

2. **Defining Contextual Objects**: The passage highlights that these props become
defining parts of the context when their presence is systematically marked within the
verbal interaction or discourse genres of that particular situation. In other words, they
are not merely part of the background but actively shape the discourse.

3. **Systematic Relevance**: Systematic relevance means that the presence of

these situational objects triggers specific structural properties within the discourse.
This may involve different word order, distinct stylistic choices, the use of special
speech acts, and other linguistic features that reflect the significance of these objects
within the context.

4. **Example**: An example could be in a courtroom where the presence of the

judge's bench, legal documents, and the defendant's stand may trigger specialized
legal language, formal speech acts, and distinct discourse structures that are unique
to legal proceedings.

In summary, the passage underscores how institutional contexts are associated with
specific objects or props that influence the structure and language of formal
discourse within those contexts. These objects are not merely part of the background
but actively shape the discourse through systematic linguistic and structural features.

Para 2

This passage discusses the role of props or objects in different contexts and how
they can be relevant to discourse. Here's an explanation:

1. **Use of Props in Specific Contexts**: Different contexts and situations often

involve the use of specific props or objects that are relevant to the activities taking

37
 Saif Khan

place. For example, meetings or sessions may be formally closed with the use of a
gavel, and christening ceremonies require holy water or champagne, depending on
whether it's for a person or a ship.

2. **Relevance of Technological Tools**: In modern contexts, technological tools are

significant props. For instance, a phone is crucial in phone conversations, and a
computer terminal or PC is relevant in the context of email interactions. These tools
are essential for carrying out the activities associated with these contexts.

3. **Microphones in Parliamentary Debate**: The passage also discusses the

presence of microphones in a parliamentary debate. The presence of microphones
becomes a systematic context feature if they play a specific role in the organization
of the discourse. In some cases, specialized microphones, like the "interruption
microphone" in the Dutch Parliament, serve a unique purpose, such as facilitating
interruptions during debates.

4. **Role of Contextual Objects**: The presence of these props or objects within

specific contexts can influence the structure and dynamics of discourse. They may
lead to the use of particular speech acts, stylistic choices, or discourse strategies
that are associated with the context in question.

In summary, the passage illustrates how props and objects in various contexts are
not just incidental but play a role in shaping discourse. They can affect the way
communication is structured and carried out within those contexts.

Topic

Action

Para 1

This passage highlights the importance of non-verbal acts and behaviors in the
comprehensibility, appropriateness, and validity of text and talk within specific
contexts. Here's an explanation:

1. **Non-Verbal Acts in Communication**: In addition to verbal communication, non-

verbal acts are crucial in conveying meaning and enhancing the effectiveness of
communication. These non-verbal acts include gestures, facial expressions, and
body movements.

2. **Non-Verbal Acts Enhance Meaning**: Non-verbal acts can complement or

reinforce the meaning of verbal communication. For instance, an accusation

38
 Saif Khan

accompanied by an angry facial expression and pointing finger can convey the
speaker's strong disapproval or anger.

3. **Context-Specific Non-Verbal Acts**: Certain speech acts may require specific

non-verbal actions to be fully understood and appropriate. For example, military
speech acts may involve salutes as a sign of respect or acknowledgment. Oaths
might require individuals to stand up and raise their hand as a symbolic gesture of
commitment or solemnity.

4. **Relevance to Mr. Rohrabacher's Speech**: The passage mentions that Mr.

Rohrabacher was likely standing up when delivering his speech, and his eventual
vote against the bill would probably involve raising his hand. These non-verbal
actions are contextually significant and are part of the overall communicative event in
a parliamentary debate.

In summary, non-verbal acts such as gestures, facial expressions, and body

movements are essential components of communication and play a significant role in
conveying meaning, making communication appropriate, and ensuring that it aligns
with the context in which it occurs.

Para 2

This passage underscores the idea that the structure of actions within a specific
context is crucial for understanding and describing that context. Here's an
explanation:

1. **Action Structure in Context**: Within a given social or institutional context, there

is often a structured sequence of actions that goes beyond mere discourse. For
example, in a doctor-patient interaction, communication through talk is just one part
of the overall structure. Other actions, such as medical examinations and
procedures, are integral to that context.

2. **Context-Embedded Actions**: In various institutional or professional settings,

discourse is intertwined with other actions, creating a complex and structured
environment. For instance, in a medical examination, the doctor's questions and
explanations (discourse) are closely linked to physical examinations and medical
procedures. These actions collectively contribute to the relevance and effectiveness
of communication within that context.

3. **Institutional Genres**: The passage mentions "institutional genres" that combine

text, talk, and various other actions in a coordinated manner. These genres are
characterized by specific rules, practices, and sequences of actions that define how
communication unfolds within that institution. Examples include legal proceedings,
medical consultations, or parliamentary debates.

39
 Saif Khan

4. **Discourse as a Structural Condition**: The idea that discourse may be a

"structural condition" within these contexts means that it is not merely a byproduct
but an integral part of the overall structure. In other words, discourse plays a specific
role and is influenced by the actions and practices within that context.

In summary, the passage emphasizes that context involves more than just
discourse; it encompasses a structured sequence of actions that include discourse,
non-verbal acts, and other relevant activities. Understanding these action structures
is essential for comprehending the context and the role of discourse within it.

Topic

Knowledge and Intentionality

Para 1

This passage highlights the importance of socio-cognitive dimensions and the role of
knowledge and beliefs in understanding discourse and action. Here's an explanation:

1. **Socio-Cognitive Dimensions**: Socio-cognitive dimensions refer to aspects of

human cognition and social interaction that are essential for understanding
communication and discourse. These dimensions include shared knowledge,
personal beliefs, intentions, plans, and purposes. They are crucial elements in how
people interpret and engage with language and actions.

2. **Shared vs. Personal Knowledge**: Shared knowledge represents information,

facts, or cultural norms that are commonly accepted or understood within a particular
social or cultural group. Personal knowledge, on the other hand, pertains to an
individual's unique beliefs, experiences, and perspectives. Both shared and personal
knowledge influence how people interpret and respond to discourse.

3. **Explanations and Implied Meanings**: When analyzing discourse, researchers

often provide explanations for implied meanings, presuppositions, or interpretations.
These explanations rely on participants' knowledge, including what they collectively
know (shared knowledge) and what individuals believe (personal knowledge).

4. **Attributing Intentions and Purposes**: Understanding action, whether it's spoken

or written, involves attributing intentions, plans, or purposes to the individuals behind
that action. In discourse analysis, researchers consider what the speakers or writers
intended to convey through their words and actions.

40
 Saif Khan

5. **Context and Knowledge**: The passage suggests that knowledge and intentions
are not just properties of participants but should also be considered part of the
context. In other words, to understand discourse fully, one must take into account the
knowledge and intentions of the participants as integral components of the context.

In summary, socio-cognitive dimensions, including shared and personal knowledge,

intentions, and purposes, play a fundamental role in the interpretation and analysis
of discourse and action. These dimensions are intertwined with the context and are
essential for comprehending the meaning and implications of communication.
Para 2

This passage emphasizes the critical role of knowledge, beliefs, and intentions in the
context of discourse analysis. Here's a breakdown:

1. **Knowledge of Language and Society**: To engage in discourse effectively,

individuals must possess knowledge of the language being used (in this case,
English) and have an understanding of the cultural and societal context (in this case,
US society). Without this knowledge, meaningful communication would be
challenging.

2. **Beliefs and Other Cognitive Factors**: In addition to language and societal

knowledge, people bring their beliefs, attitudes, and other cognitive factors into their
discourse. These beliefs can influence what they say, how they say it, and their
overall communication style. For example, Mr. Rohrabacher's attitudes toward civil
rights, women, and minorities will shape his discourse on related topics.

3. **Intention and Purpose**: Discourse is not just a neutral exchange of information.

People typically have intentions and purposes when they communicate. In Mr.
Rohrabacher's case, his clear intention is to defeat the bill. These intentions and
purposes are essential components of the context because they inform why he is
saying what he is saying.

4. **Social Components of Context**: While knowledge and beliefs are cognitive

components of the context, the passage suggests that they are also social
components. This means that how Mr. Rohrabacher's audience understands him
and interprets his words is influenced by shared social norms, values, and
expectations. It's not just about individual cognitive processes; it's about the broader
social context.

5. **Expression of Understanding (or Lack Thereof)**: The passage highlights that

understanding (or lack of understanding) is not merely an internal cognitive process
but is often expressed in discourse itself. When people do not comprehend or agree
with what is being said, they may vocally express their confusion or disagreement.

41
 Saif Khan

Phrases like "You don't know what you are talking about!" or "Why are you telling me
that?" are examples of how individuals signal their comprehension or lack thereof.

In essence, this passage underscores that discourse analysis involves considering

not only the linguistic aspects but also the cognitive and social dimensions that
shape communication. It emphasizes that understanding discourse requires
recognizing the interplay between language, knowledge, beliefs, intentions, and the
broader social context.

Topic

Higher level Action

Para 1

This passage delves into the idea that contexts extend beyond just the immediate
linguistic or communicative elements. Here are the key points:

1. **Higher-Level Definitions**: The passage suggests that contexts include not only
the immediate structural elements of discourse (e.g., individual speech acts,
sentences) but also a higher-level definition of the entire situation or event. In
essence, it's about understanding discourse within the broader framework of the
event it is a part of.

2. **Examples of Events**: The passage provides examples of events or situations

where discourse is a crucial component. These events include a class, an
interrogation, a visit to the doctor, a board meeting, or a press conference. In these
situations, discourse (what is said and how it is said) plays a significant role in
shaping the event itself.

3. **Contextual Functionality**: The analysis of discourse often focuses on its

contextual functionality at this higher level. This means that researchers are
interested in how discourse contributes to, defines, or shapes the larger event or
action. For example, in a press conference, the way questions are asked and
answered can influence the overall tone and outcome of the event.

4. **Understanding Complex Social Interactions**: This concept of higher-level

context is important in understanding complex social interactions. It acknowledges
that when people communicate, they are not just exchanging words in isolation; they
are participating in broader social activities, and their discourse is a part of that
activity.

42
 Saif Khan

Overall, this passage highlights the need to consider the role of discourse within
larger events or actions and emphasizes that discourse analysis often involves
examining how language use functions within these broader contexts.

Para 2

Indeed, this passage reinforces the idea that context analysis can be a complex
endeavor. Here are the key points:

1. **Complexity of Context Analysis**: The passage acknowledges that context

analysis can be as intricate as discourse analysis itself. It's not a simple task and can
involve a wide range of factors and considerations.

2. **Theoretical Perspective**: The complexity of context analysis can vary

depending on one's theoretical perspective. Different researchers or analysts may
choose to focus on specific aspects of context that align with their research goals or
theoretical frameworks. This flexibility allows for context analysis to be tailored to the
specific needs of a study.

3. **Immediate vs. Broader Context**: Context can encompass a range of elements,

including features of participants, settings, and other acts. Some researchers may
opt to focus on a limited set of immediately relevant factors, while others may take a
more comprehensive approach, considering a broader array of contextual elements.

Overall, this passage highlights that context analysis should be approached with
careful consideration of the specific research goals and theoretical framework, as
well as an awareness of the potential complexity involved in understanding how
context shapes discourse.

Para 3

This passage emphasizes the expansive and interconnected nature of contextual

analysis. Here are the key points:

1. **No A Priori Limit to Context**: There is no predefined limit to what can be

considered relevant context. Context can operate at different levels, from immediate
situational factors to broader societal and institutional systems. These levels of
context are interconnected and can influence each other.

2. **Contextual Hierarchy**: The passage provides examples of how certain actions

or events, such as a verdict in a trial or a speech in a campaign, are nested within
broader contexts. For instance, a verdict is situated within a trial, which itself exists
within the broader context of a legal system. This hierarchical structure of contexts

43
 Saif Khan

demonstrates how actions and discourse gain meaning and significance from their
placement within larger systems.

3. **Interconnected Systems**: The passage highlights that context analysis involves

understanding how different actions and discourse fit into complex institutional and
societal arrangements and systems. For example, a political speech like Mr.
Rohrabacher's may have implications for various aspects of the broader
sociopolitical context, such as race and gender relations in the United States.

In summary, this passage underscores the dynamic and interrelated nature of

context, which extends from immediate situational factors to encompass broader
institutional and societal systems. Analyzing context in this holistic manner is
essential for a comprehensive understanding of how discourse functions within
society.

Topic

Local and Global Contexts

Para 1

This passage introduces the concept of distinguishing between local or interactional

context and global or societal context in discourse analysis. Here are the key points:

1. **Local Context**: The local or interactional context refers to the immediate and
specific context in which a discourse event takes place. It includes factors like the
participants involved, the actions they perform, the time and place of the interaction,
and other situational elements. For example, in a trial, the local context would
encompass the judge, lawyers, witnesses, and the physical courtroom.

2. **Global Context**: The global or societal context, on the other hand, extends
beyond the immediate situation and encompasses broader social and cultural
structures. It refers to the larger framework within which discourse events occur. For
instance, in the case of a trial, the global context might involve the legal system, the
cultural norms related to justice, and the societal values and expectations regarding
legal proceedings.

3. **Delimitation Challenges**: The passage acknowledges that delineating these

contexts precisely can be challenging. While the local context can often be defined
more concretely, the global context is complex and abstract, involving a wide range
of societal and cultural factors.

44
 Saif Khan

4. **Rationality and Functionality**: Discourse events are often shaped by and

contribute to the rationality and functionality of these larger social and cultural
structures. Understanding both local and global contexts is crucial for a
comprehensive analysis of discourse because it helps reveal how individual
interactions relate to broader societal norms, values, and institutions.

In summary, this passage highlights the distinction between local and global contexts
in discourse analysis and emphasizes their significance in understanding how
discourse is embedded within and influenced by broader social and cultural
structures.
Para 2

The passage raises questions about whether everyday conversations, storytelling,

jokes, and similar mundane forms of discourse are always embedded within a more
global societal order or situation, and whether a global context is relevant for such
discourse. Here are the key points:

1. **Local Occasion**: Everyday conversations, storytelling, jokes, and similar forms

of discourse are indeed locally occasioned and contextualized. They often occur in
specific situations with particular participants, settings, and immediate situational
factors.

2. **Global Societal Order**: The passage questions whether these forms of

discourse always have a direct connection to a broader global societal order or
situation. In other words, it raises the possibility that not all discourse events need to
be explicitly tied to larger societal structures.

3. **Relevance of Global Context**: It raises the question of whether a global

context, in the sense of a broader societal order, is always relevant for
understanding and analyzing such discourse. This challenges the assumption that all
discourse must be interpreted in light of broader societal norms or values.

4. **Complexity of Analysis**: The passage highlights the complexity of analyzing

discourse in different contexts. While institutional talk often clearly relates to larger
societal structures, the relationship between global context and more everyday forms
of discourse may be less straightforward.

In summary, the passage questions whether everyday discourse always needs to be

situated within a global societal context for analysis and emphasizes the need to
consider the diverse ways in which different forms of discourse are contextualized
and embedded within various levels of social and cultural meaning.

Para 3

45
 Saif Khan

The passage discusses how examples presented in this volume indicate that local
discourse and context are often produced and understood as functional parts of
global contexts. Here are the key points:

1. **Corporate Business Stories**: Stories told in corporate business settings serve

multiple functions, including managing a company and reproducing corporate culture
and ideologies. These stories are situated within the broader context of corporate
culture and practices.

2. **Racist Arguments**: Similarly, in discussions involving racist arguments, the

discourse is not isolated but rather contributes to the reproduction of prejudice,
racism, and social inequality. Such discourse is embedded within a larger societal
context that perpetuates these issues.

3. **Greetings and Forms of Address**: Greetings and forms of address are also
mentioned as examples. These linguistic choices are not arbitrary but are shaped by
the complex system of politeness, deference, and power within a particular
community or culture.

4. **Global Context Dependence**: The passage highlights the idea that local
discourse and context often depend on, and contribute to, broader global contexts. It
suggests that understanding discourse requires examining its relationship with
societal and cultural structures.

In summary, the passage underscores the interconnectedness of local discourse

with global contexts, emphasizing the importance of studying how discourse
functions within larger social and cultural frameworks. This perspective is central to
social discourse analysis, which seeks to uncover the complex ways in which
discourse shapes and is shaped by societal structures and ideologies.

Topic

Constructing Contexts

Para 1

The passage emphasizes two important aspects of context analysis:

1. **Flexibility and Negotiation of Contexts**: Contexts are not fixed or static; instead,
they can be flexible and subject to negotiation, particularly in conversational
interactions. This means that participants in a conversation may collaboratively
shape and adapt the context as the discourse unfolds. This dynamic aspect of

46
 Saif Khan

context is discussed further in Chapter 3, Volume 2, by Anita Pomerantz and B.J.

Fehr.

2. **Mutual Influence between Discourse and Context**: The passage highlights the
interplay between discourse and context. Discourses are not separate from their
contexts but are an integral part of them. Conversely, the structures of contexts can
also be influenced and constructed by the discourses that occur within them. This
mutual influence between discourse and context highlights their interconnectedness.

In essence, the passage underscores that context analysis should consider the
dynamic and reciprocal relationship between discourse and the contexts in which it
occurs. This recognition is crucial for understanding how language use and context
continuously shape and affect each other in various social interactions and
communicative settings.

Para 2

This passage emphasizes two significant points about contexts:

1. **Subjectivity of Contexts**: Contexts are not objective or universally understood

in the same way by all participants. Instead, they are subjective and subject to
interpretation. Different participants may perceive and interpret the same context
differently, depending on their perspectives, experiences, and cultural backgrounds.

2. **Context Construction and Relevance**: Contexts are not static but are actively
constructed, maintained, and made relevant by participants in a communicative
situation. This means that individuals strategically shape and manipulate contexts to
serve their communicative goals, and what is considered relevant can vary based on
the participants' objectives.

In essence, the passage highlights that context is not a fixed, objective backdrop to
discourse but is instead a dynamic and subjective aspect of communication.
Participants play an active role in constructing and interpreting contexts, and these
contexts can change and evolve throughout a communicative interaction.
Understanding this subjectivity and dynamic nature of contexts is crucial for
analyzing discourse in its social and cultural context accurately.

Para 3

This passage delves into a cognitive perspective on contexts and their relationship
with discourse. Here are the key points:

1. **Contexts as Mental Constructs**: It suggests that contexts can be seen as

mentally constructed models or representations in individuals' memories. These

47
 Saif Khan

mental constructs help individuals make sense of their surroundings, both in social
interactions and in understanding discourse.

2. **Subjectivity of Contexts and Discourse**: The passage underscores the

subjectivity inherent in both contexts and discourse. Because contexts are mentally
constructed, they are subjective and can vary from person to person. This
subjectivity is mirrored in the way different individuals perceive and engage with the
same context and discourse differently.

3. **Link between Discourse and Context**: The passage highlights the intimate
connection between discourse and context from a cognitive standpoint. Mental
models of contexts play a crucial role in monitoring and influencing the production
and comprehension of discourse. In other words, individuals' cognitive
representations of context directly impact how they use and understand language.

4. **Variation in Response to Context**: The passage refutes the idea that the 'same'
social context would have a uniform effect on all language users in that context.
Instead, it acknowledges that individuals' subjectivity and cognitive processes lead to
variations in how they respond to and engage with the same context.

5. **Social Structures and Cognitive Processes**: It suggests that understanding the

interaction between social structures and discourse structures requires considering
the cognitive dimension. Social structures influence discourse structures through the
minds of individuals, as people's mental representations of contexts shape their
language use and interpretation.

In summary, this perspective emphasizes the role of individual cognition in shaping

how people perceive and engage with contexts and discourse. It highlights the
importance of considering both the social and cognitive dimensions when analyzing
the relationship between language and its surrounding context.

Para 4

This passage explores the interaction between objective social facts, subjective
interpretation, and the role of cognition in shaping discourse. Here are the key
points:

1. **Objective Social Facts**: The passage acknowledges that objective social facts,
such as age or profession, do not directly determine how people use language,
particularly in terms of pronoun usage. These facts alone do not cause others to use
polite pronouns.

2. **Subjective Interpretation**: Instead, it is the subjective interpretation or

construction of these social facts by individuals that serves as the basis for language

48
 Saif Khan

choices. In other words, people interpret social cues, like someone's age or
profession, and use these interpretations as reasons to be polite or make certain
linguistic choices.

3. **Intersection of Cognition and Context**: The passage highlights the intersection

between cognition and context. When individuals engage in discourse, their cognitive
processes, which include interpreting social cues, play a crucial role in shaping their
language use. This is where cognition and context become mutually relevant, as
people's mental representations and interpretations of social facts influence their
linguistic behavior.

4. **Making Sense of Situations**: It mentions that language users are not merely
engaging in discourse as an action within a situation; they are fundamentally trying to
make sense of the situation. This suggests that language serves as a tool for
individuals to navigate and understand their social environment.

In summary, the passage underscores the role of individual interpretation and

cognition in linking objective social facts with language use. It emphasizes that
language users actively interpret social cues and use language to make sense of the
social situations they encounter, demonstrating the interplay between cognition and
context in discourse.

Para 5

This passage raises important considerations about the components of context and
their relationship to discourse. Here are the key points:

1. **Modality of Communication**: The passage mentions the modality of

communication, such as whether discourse is spoken or written (or recorded), as a
component that may be relevant to context. However, it notes that it's not entirely
clear whether this should be considered a property of discourse itself or part of its
context. The choice of modality can influence how discourse is produced and
interpreted.

2. **Genres of Discourse**: Another component discussed is the genre of discourse,

such as stories, news reports, or everyday conversations. Similar to modality, it
raises questions about whether genre should be seen as a property of discourse or
its context. Different genres have distinct conventions and purposes.

3. **Rules and Norms**: The passage mentions rules and norms that govern
discourse. These could be viewed as social elements, making them part of the global
social context. However, it also raises the possibility of considering rules as a form of
knowledge that resides in the minds of participants. Depending on the perspective or
theory, they could be seen as either context or a property of participants.

49
 Saif Khan

4. **Theoretical Perspective**: The passage acknowledges that the categorization of

these components may depend on one's theoretical perspective or theory of
discourse. Different theories may treat these components differently, some as
properties of context, some as elements of discourse structure, and others as part of
the relationship between discourse and context.

In summary, this passage highlights the complexity of defining the components of

context and their relationship to discourse. It recognizes that the categorization of
these components can vary depending on the theoretical framework one adopts.
These considerations underscore the interdisciplinary nature of discourse analysis,
which draws from linguistics, sociology, psychology, and other fields to explore the
multifaceted nature of communication.

Till page 16

50