Minggu, 09 September 2018

The Definition of Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis


Pragmatics (PRAG) is the study of the use of language in actual situations and contexts and what they are. according to experts, the definition of pragmatics refers more to the use of language orally, so that one of the characteristics possessed is that speech acts are not contained in spoken language.
In addition, there is an opinion that says pragmatics has a lot in common with discourse analysis (DA), among others, both see language as a communication tool in both oral and written (Cutting, 2008). Brown and Yule (1983) state that PRAG is an approach to learning language (discourse) which involves analyzing its elements such as grammar, vocabulary, and their meaning by looking at the context.

In other words, analyzing language especially oral language must pay more attention to the context that transports participants, location, time, and the topic of discussion, not just formal linguistic elements.

Atkinson, Kilby, and Roca (1988; 217) define PRAG as something related to the difference between what the speaker means and the words and what they mean. PRAG relates to the use of language functions not only with the form or pattern of grammar and vocabulary but especially in the context of its actual and natural usage. Grundy (2008) defines PRAG as the study of the language used in the communication-context and principles associated with their use.

Cutting (2008: 2) looking at PRAG is the same as DA as the study of the meaning of words in context, the parts of its meaning, and the socio-psychological factors that influence communication, besides that the understanding factor about time and place when the words are spoken or written. Cutting (2008) in his book Pragmatics and Discourse: A Resource-Book for Students emphasizes that PRAG and DA are very similar or almost exactly the same about the concept so that both language learning approaches are equally focused on the meaning of words in interaction and how that interaction convey a broader meaning than the words used by the speakers.

For DA, many experts also have defined it in their own way according to their understanding and views based on the results of learning and research that has been done. Discourse is an expression that can be shorter or longer than a sentence which has certain meaning based on context. For example, McCarthy (1991: 5) defines DA as the study of and discussing the relationship between language and the context of its use, whereas according to van Leeuwen (2008), DA is not a science of language theory but about language in practice - all discourses recontextualize social practices, and that all knowledge is, therefore, ultimately grounded in practice.

Halliday and Hasan (1976) stated that discourse or text is a unity of language spoken or printed either long or short. Text or discourse is a unity of meanings (semantics) not only grammatical unity which includes the elements below (morphemes, phrases, and clauses) (Lubis, 1988). According to Crystal (1980), discourse is a term in linguistics which means a continuous expression that is longer than a sentence. Discourse is a set of utterances that express oral events that people recognize such as conversation, jokes, humor, and interviews.

In other words, DA is the study of the language that is being used which includes all forms of printed text and oral language data from chatter to the form of conversations that are strictly official and full of protocols. Furthermore, Fairlough (1989) looked at DA in three dimensions of work; (a) analysis of language texts (oral and printed), (b) practical analysis of discourse (the process of production, distribution, and use of discourse), (c) analysis of discourse events (sociocultural analysis).

Second, DA is fundamentally related to the relationship between language and the context of its use. Cook (2001) then makes several statements about what is meant by DA. First, similar to what experts said earlier that the DA is the language used to communicate sustainability. Second, DA is fundamentally related to the relationship between language and the context of its use. Third, DA is a discourse-forming device that studies how to make language meaningful (coherent) and continuous (cohesive) - which studies the relationship between language forms and their functions.

Van Dijk (2009) in his book Society and Discourse, presents his new theory of context which explains how texts and speech (discourse) are adapted to the social environment. And explained that the relationship between discourse (text and speech) and the social environment is an indirect relationship, subjective and dynamic interpreted and understood by speakers involved. Stead and Bakker (2010) stated that the DA is an important tool for (of course) language users to understand and interpret the meaning of words and expressions are culturally and socially to the job, and to describe how special regulations and collective agreements in defining the message of work in certain context. According to O'Grady et al (2010), discourse is a series of utterances that occur during a conversation, a lecture, a story or other speech acts.

THE SCOPE OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Discourse analysis is not only concerned with the description and analysis of spoken interaction. In addition to all verbal encounters who consume hundreds of written and printed words; newspaper articles, letters, stories, recipes, instructions, notices, comics, billboards, leaflets, pushed through the door, and so on, usually expected to be coherent, meaningful communications in which the words and sentences are linked to one another in a fashion that corresponds to conventional formulae; therefore, discourse analysis (DA) is equally interested in the organization of written interaction.

SPOKEN DISCOURSE: MODELS OF ANALYSIS

One approach that affects the study of spoken discourse is developed at the University of Birmingham, where an initial investigation relating to the structure of the discourse in the classroom (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975). The Birmingham model is certainly not the only valid approach to analyzing discourse, but it is a relatively simple and strong model that has a relationship with the study of speech acts. Sinclair and Coulthard found in the language of traditional native-speakers school classroom a rigid pattern, where teachers and students spoke according to very fixed perceptions of their roles and where conversation could be seen to fit in a highly structured sequence. Framing move is what Sinclair and Coulthard call the function of these utterances.

Sinclair and Coulthard call this unit as an exchange. This particular exchange consists of questions, an answer, and a comment, and so it is a three-part exchange. Each of the parts is given the name move by Sinclair and Coulthard. Each of these exchanges consists of three moves, but it is only in the first move seems to be (1) functioning as a question, (2) giving information, and (3) commanding. The second moves seem to have the function respectively, of (1) an answer, (2) an acknowledgment and (3) a non-verbal response. The third moves are in all three exchanges functioning as feedback on the second moves: (1) to be polite and say thanks, (2) to confirm the information and (3) to say thanks again.

CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM

So far, the traditional classroom, where roles are rigidly defined and the patterns of initiation, response and follow-up in exchanges are relatively easy to perceive where transactions are heavily marked. The classroom was a convenient place to start, as they discovered, but it is not the ‘real' world of conversation. It is a place where teachers ask questions which are already known the answers, where the students have very limited rights as speakers, and where evaluation by the teacher of what students say is a vital mechanism in the discourse structure. A conversation outside the classroom settings vary, but a conversation that seems, at first sight, to be free and unstructured can be shown to have structure.

 By : Harry Utama Putra, S.Pd.
Post-Graduate Student of Sriwijaya University