social norms, culture, mentality, hidden intentions and pragmatic elements, such as tone, intonation, facial expressions gestures, etc. All of them form a context of situation in which the language was used and we will not give adequate interpretation of the language without them. So, the universe of discourse which is the total context of facts, things, relations , ideas , etc., implied or assumed in a given discussion or discourse is very important when analyzing meanings .The complete meaning of a written or spoken discourse can be fully understood from the context rather than the sentence alone . It is also understood by examining the
Lexicographers study words , their meanings and their histories . Grammarians are concerned with the words and how they are put together to form sentences and spoken utterances . And Discourse Analysts study the ways sentences and utterances go together to make texts and interactions and how they fit into our social world . Therefore , the term discourse analysis may be defined in different ways and its meaning will vary according
He defines hypertext as every text derived from a previous one by means of direct or indirect transformation, but not through commentary. What Genette terms the hypotext is termed by most other critics the inter-text that is a text which can be definitely located as a major source of significations for a text. His hypertextuality might seem rather similar to his architextuality, because he is not concerned with a general facet of language, or culturally signifying practices, but with a generic aspect of the closed system of literature. The main difference between hypertextuality and architextuality is that whilst pastiche, parody and caricature are essentially and intentionally hypertextual, tragedy, comedy, the novel and the lyric are based on the notion of imitation of generic modals rather specific hypotexts. The meaning of hypertextual world depends upon the reader’s knowledge of the hypotext which the hypertext either satirically transforms or imitates for the purpose of pastiche.
Edwards and Csizér (2001) give a definition for pragmatic competence as the knowing of defined social, cultural, and discourse rules of situations set by a community desired to being abided in communication. However violations of pragmatic competenc hazard the empathetic nature of communication and cause miscommunication and confusion. Kasper (1997) identify pragmatic competence as not holding knowledge in addition to that of grammatical instruction but as a vital factor of communicative competence. Review of the related literature Researches in communication strategies have inaugurated myriad strategies and competencies needed for surpassing communication. Kasper, G. (1997) propounds that pragmatic competence cannot be taught but it can be developed through providing adequate tasks and activities.
This theory regards the social context in which the language is used as crucial. Critical Discourse Analysis directs much of its attention and dedicates a substantial amount of research to the relation between language and power. Presently the term CDA is used to denote the scholars’ critical linguistic approach, in line with which larger discursive units of text are perceived as basic units of communication. CDA examines institutional, political,
1.1 Introduction The study of “cross cultural communication” is a great example of linguistic theory and how it’s applied. Researchers are often drawn towards this area of study for its vast significance; “depending on the culture, the people, and the personal relationships throughout the world.” This is further studied to interpret sentences beyond its linguistically stated sentences. This is in turn done by observing the interactions one has, the habits it instills, and “expectations of how to show what is meant by what is said. The form of communication used over the years is “language”. It is the vital way of communication performed among humans, has an important role in “defining and expressing the world that is around us.” It is how we send out a message to other people.
According to (Mills, 2009), discourse is verbal communication or a formal treatment of a subject in speech or writing. This sense in the general use of discourse as having to do with conversation and holding forth on a specific subject has been partly due to the various meanings of the word. (Mills, 2009) also further proposes that Discourse analysis focuses on the structure of naturally occurring spoken language, as commonly found in commentaries, interviews, speeches and conversations. In particular discourse analysis and text can be used in a much broader sense to include all language units with definable communicative function whether written or spoken. The essay below will assess how a researcher can assess discourse analysis through a
Both reject mentalistic conceptions of meaning as a nonphysical process. 2. Both present a physicalist conception of meaning, which consists of consequent events to which speech is related. 3. Both consider the events of the world,like sounds produced by speech, as complex situations whose analysis by the linguist or the behavior analyst is very difficult.
Kind of: From a Noun Construction to a Discourse Marker Abstract: This study investigates the various uses of a kind of, ranging from a noun construction equivalent to a type of to a discourse marker with interpersonal or textual meaning, and special emphasis is laid on the differences between its nominal qualifying and adverbial uses and its peculiarity as a discourse marker. Grammaticalization underlies the different uses and their co-existence. There is a close correspondence between its form and meaning, and on the other hand, the proper interpretation of the different uses depends on the context. Key words: a kind of, grammaticalization, nominal qualifier, adverbial, discourse marker 1. Introduction (A)kind of/sort of occurs with a significantly high frequency in spoken English.