This probably overlaps a lot with pragmatics-and a lot of theoretical and analytical tooling like speech act theory or Gricean maxims are shared-but AFAIU DA is more interested in textual (i.e. There on we investigate different properties like structure, pauses or intonation in how they relate to different pragmatic goals, like turn taking in speech and signaling coherence, deixis, etc., in more "purer" DA research, and other strands of research like Critical Discourse Analysis or Feminist Discourse Analysis may then extrapolate how these reflect power relations or social preconceptions.
One of the most common tools is transcriptions peculiar to DA. DA in Linguistics is more exact in general and focused on extents of written or aural or signed text and conversations. Tho suffice to say the concerns of DA inside of linguistics is separate from that in literary studies and the Foucauldian tradition, which tend more towards philosophical approaches. Discourse analysis is an umbrella term for many research methodologies, and it's a hugely multidisciplinary field, so it's hard to pin it down. Trying to talk about it a bit myself, I think I should start with saying that I don't really know methodology in pragmatics, but it and discourse analysis (DA) are pretty close to each other. In any case tho, if you are familiar with basics of linguistics, the Handbook is _the_ resource to familiarise yourself with latest research and history of ideas of any subdiscipline of linguistics. For deepening on Chomskyan syntax, which has roots in mathematical / logical approaches, I suggest Syntactic Structures Revisited by Howard Lasnik, which is a truly wonderful pedagogical achievement, given the excess complexity of Chomskyan theory. If you don't have hold of basic linguistics theory and concepts, you may give An Introduction to Language by Fromkin, Rodman, Hyams a go. I'm only a lowly master's student so I don't have a good hold of all literature, and pragmatics & discourse aren't really my forte, so I think I'd rather refer you to a great resource: the Handbook of Linguistics, editors Aronoff and Rees-Miller. are the product of the same mentality that in ye olde times wanted you not to split infinitives, not to end your sentences with prepositions, and other nonsense up with which you should not put. Like, if I splat that previous sentence into two around "and", would it really be two sentences, or is it really one sentence to begin with?Īll these weird stuff like "don't use active voice" or "use 'simpler' words" etc. But you can have paragraph long sentences that read just buttery smooth, and "sentence" itself is a pretty vague term that you can't really pin down.
long-distance dependencies & deictic elements). I'd be more willing to concede if this was talking about the distance of things that refer to each other, or the number of words that refer to previous discourse or outer world (i.e.
Similarly, you can't boil down "complexity" to the length of sentences or number of clauses. There's a variety of approaches here, but you'd be hard pressed to find even a supporter of transformational generative grammar, the Chomskyan paradigm who says active and passive sentences come from the same underlying deep structure (roughly speaking), who'd say active and passive voice sentences are equal or equivalent in discourse. "use" and "utilise" are not at all the same words, one fancy. Linguistics explores these phenomena from many directions, via it's subdisciplines like pragmatics, discourse analysis, semantics, and even syntax.Ī couple well known things the field mostly agrees: there are no real synonyms, in the sense that every word has its own semantic baggage, and that manifests different meanings in different contexts.
0 kommentar(er)
