DISCOURSE AND CULTURE Discourse Analysis Coherence Background Knowledge

DISCOURSE AND CULTURE Discourse Analysis Coherence Background Knowledge Cross Cultural Pragmatics

Introduction q Language use is functional • function: taking part in interaction • function: creating well-formed and appropriate text • function: representing thought and experience in a coherent way • discourse analysis: investigating the form and function of what is said and written q (written text has no immediate interactive feedback, therefore more explicit structural mechanisms are necessary for the organization of text) q covers an extremely wide range of activities from the narrowly focused investigation of how words such as 'oh' or 'well' are used in casual talk, to the study of the dominant ideology in a

Discourse Analysis q linguistic discourse analysis focuses on the record of the process by which language is used in some context to express intention q what makes text? • explicit connections between sentences in a text that create cohesion • elements of textual organization that are characteristic of storytelling, expressing an opinion, etc. q the pragmatic perspective of discourse analysis specialized of what issocial concerns (or unwritten) but yet q on go aspects beyond primarily of interaction and communicated conversation analysis, look behind forms and structures, and pay more attention to psychological concepts, such as q what does the speaker/writer have in mind?

Coherence q assumption of for all language users: what is said/written will make sense in terms of their normal experience of things (locally interpreted and tied to the familiar and expected) • Plant Sale • Garage Sale q identical structure, but different interpretation, requires familiarity with suburban life q listeners tend to make instant interpretations of familiar material, not always thinking about possible alternatives

How many animals of each type did Moses take on the ark? q if you thought of 'two' you immediately accessed some common cultural knowledge, without noticing that 'Moses' was inappropriate q listeners may even create coherent interpretations for texts that do not potentially have it A motor vehicle accident was reported in front of Kennedy Theater involving a male and a female q automatically filling in details (e. g. , person) to create coherence Man robs hotel with sandwich q create a scenario to make sense of the situation - man used sandwich in bag to pose as gun?

Background Knowledge q Automatic interpretations are based on pre-existing knowledge structures (familiar patterns from previous experiences used to interpret new experiences) q : a pre-existing knowledge structure in memory q : fixed, static pattern q A frame shared by everyone in a social group is • Apartment for rent: $ 500. 763 -6683 • 'apartment for rent' advertisement frame • $ 500 per month not per year or per week

q : pre-existing knowledge structure involving event sequences • I stopped to get some groceries, but there weren't any baskets left so by the time I arrived at the • check-out counter I must have looked like a juggler having a bad day q script for getting groceries involves having a basket, going to the check-out counter etc. q everything not mentioned is assumed to be shared • (going through a door, walking around, picking up items from shelves) q for members of different cultures the assumption of a shared script can lead to miscommunication

Cross Cultural Pragmatics q : background knowledge structures for making sense of the world are culturally determined q Situation: Australian factory supervisor assumes that workers know that Easter is close and that therefore everyone will have a holiday. Question to Vietnamese worker: You have five days off. What are you going to do? (Vietnamese worker may think he is being laid off) q : study of differences in expectations based on cultural schemata q The concepts and terminology provided so far provide a basic analytic framework, but the realization of those concepts may differ substantially from English

Ø there might even be a cultural preference for NOT saying what you believe to be the case (vs. the cooperative principle, different quantity or quality maxims) Ø different turn-taking mechanisms in different cultures Ø different interpretations of speech acts e. g. , American style of complimenting creates embarassment for Native Americans (perceived as excessive) or perceived as an apology by Japanese listeners (and thus impossible to accept) : study of different cultural ways of speaking Examples: Speech acts Ø In English offers can be made in the form of questions (‘Would you like another beer? ’), this is not used in Polish (instead:

Ø Anglo-American apologies for an offence include acknowledgement of fault, Japanese ones do not (preferring to offer a remedy) Ø Anglo-American apologies for refusing an invitation have precise explanation, Japanese ones remain vague Politeness Ø Javanese: achieve harmony and peaceful relations by concealing feelings, wants and thoughts (pretense) Ø Anglo-American: ‘white lies’ so as not to offend someone Ø Polish/German: honesty valued as a sign of friendship, no well-meaning lie Ø Japanese speakers avoid confrontation (never say ‘you’re wrong’, ‘that’s not true’)

Example situations: Ø Korean student helps Anglo-American tutor with computer K: Do you know how to use this program? A: Approximately ( ) K assumes A knows nothing Ø A German student disagrees with a Chinese student ( ) - the German student voices disagreement directly, even highlights dissent (‘No, no, that’s not right’) - the Chinese speaker signals consent before indicating disagreement (‘I believe not, but I must say there is’). - the Chinese speaker concedes the argument to end the conflict. the Chinese speaker perceives the German speaker as aggressive the German speaker perceives the Chinese speaker as

Ø in business negotiations Anglo-American business people prefer close, friendly, egalitatarian relationships, symmetrical solidarity, using first names from the beginning. Ø Asians prefer , and to keep surnames. They invent Western first names to get around the insistence on first names and reserve their Chinese first name for intimates Discourse structure Ø East Asian inductive style: start with topic/background, then move to main point Ø Western deductive style: start with main point, then give reasons : communicative behavior of non-native speakers (pragmatic accent) - often difficulties with indirect speech acts - lack of politeness forms, e. g. when learning/using Japanese