b.iii)Involvement in Discourse Analysis

b.iii)Involvement in Discourse Analysis

The claim that discourse analysis is acknowledged as one of the most extensive areas in linguistics has been confirmed by Schiffrin (1994). One of the reasons for this is, as Schiffrin claims (1994:5), that contemporary comprehension of discourse is based on the knowledge and findings of a variety of disciplines which may differ from one another to a great extent. The disciplines that are included in this broad field of linguistic study are not only those “in which models for understanding, and methods for analyzing discourse first developed”, such as linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and philosophy, but also disciplines “that have applied (and thus often extended) such models and methods to problems within their own particular academic domains”, i.e. communication, social psychology, and artificial intelligence (Schiffrin 1994:5).

Brown and Yule (1983) define discourse analysis as “the analysis of language in use. As such, it cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independent of the purposes or functions which those forms are designed to serve in human affairs” (1983:1). In addition, they claim that some linguists focus on the investigation of formal properties of a language, i.e. formalist approach, while discourse analysts focus on the study of language in use, i.e. their approach can be referred to as functional.

Stubbs (1983) uses the term discourse analysis to “refer mainly to the linguistic analysis of naturally occurring connected spoken or written discourse. [...] It refers to attempts to study the organization of language above the sentence or above the clause, and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational exchanges or written texts” (1983:1). From that it follows that “discourse analysis is also concerned with language in use in social contexts, and in particular with interaction or dialogue between speakers” (1983:1).

In discourse analysis, involvement refers to “linguistic variation across spoken and written modes of communication” (Besnier 1994:279-280). Spoken language differs from written language not only structurally and stylistically but also with regard to involvement, as Besnier (1994:280) correctly points out. The structure of spoken language indicates considerable attention that participants pay to the act of communication itself and to the conversational partners and their needs, whereas in written discourse authors concentrate on “producing something that will be consistent and defensible when read by different people at different times in different places” (Chafe 1982:45), and thus they are not much concerned with the interactional aspects of communication (Besnier 1994:280). Chafe’s finding has been confirmed by Tannen (1985:131) as well, see Section 2.4.

With reference to this, Chafe states that writing is “a lonely activity” in contrast to speaking, which takes place in “an environment of social interaction”. This results in the written language having “a detached quality” whereas involvement of the speaker is typical of spoken language (Chafe 1985:105). Chafe’s approach to the notion of involvement will be discussed in Chapter 2.7 in a more detailed way.

If one realizes that discourse analysis has its origins not only in linguistics but also in social sciences and philosophy, it will not be so surprising that it is such a vast field of study (Schiffrin 1987:2). Early efforts at discourse analysis may be seen in the work of Harris (1951, 1952), who is known for his work on structural linguistics. He attempts to introduce a method based on the premise that it is not necessary to know the particular meaning or function of a morpheme to be able to discover and analyze the structure in writing or connected speech (1951:25). On the basis of his research, Harris points out that if distributional methods of analysis are adopted to a whole text, “structural features which extend over longer stretches of each connected piece of writing or talking” may be discovered (1951:6). Harris’s work suggests a tendency to an analysis of structures that go beyond the boundaries of a sentence.

In the area of social sciences, anthropology has inquired into naturally occurring discourse as a “culturally relative realization of ways of acting and being” (Schiffrin 1987:2). In addition, it was the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski who introduced the term “phatic communion”. It is “a type of speech in which ties of union are created by a mere exchange of words” (2006 [1926]:297). The main aim of words in phatic communion is to fulfil a social function, “language does not function here as a means of transmission of thought” (2006 [1926]:297).

At the beginning of the 1970’s there appeared a movement within American sociology which also contributed to the development of discourse analysis. This approach is known as ethnomethodology and it aimed at replacing deductive and quantitative methods used in sociological research by the study of the methods which people employ when engaged in social interaction (Crystal 2003a:167). What is also important is the attention to the experience of individuals, i.e. how they understand and report their interactions.

As regards the origins of discourse analysis in philosophy, Austin’s (1962) and Searle’s (1969) work on the theory of speech acts and Grice’s conversational maxims defined within the framework of the Cooperative Principle (1989) must be mentioned, since they focused attention to discourse and language use.

b.iii.1Basic Hypotheses of Discourse Analysis

c.Language always occurs in a context.

d.Language is context sensitive.

e.Language is always communicative.

f.Language is designed for communication. (Schiffrin 1987:3)

The first assumption (“language always occurs in a context”) has been confirmed by disciplines such as sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics which is carried out in specific contexts. These contexts include cultural contexts of shared world views, social contexts which shape the image of self, and cognitive contexts of “past experience and knowledge. Understanding how language is used and how it is structured depends on consideration of how it is embedded in all of these contexts” (Schiffrin 1987:3).

The importance of analyzing the context in which language is produced has been emphasized not only in discourse analysis but also in pragmatics. Mey (2001:39) defines the notion of context as a “dynamic, not a static concept: it is to be understood as the continually changing surroundings [...] that enable the participants in the communication process to interact, and in which the linguistic expressions of their interaction become intelligible.” Further, Mey adds that context specifies the meaning of our utterances and gives them “their true pragmatic meaning” (2001:41).

The second assumption which stresses the context sensitivity of language relates to the first claim (“language always occurs in a context”) because it is not only the language itself that occurs in a context but it is also true about all its levels. What is more, Schiffrin points out that language reflects all contexts in which it occurs because “it helps to constitute them” (1987:5).

The two remaining suppositions about language concern communication. Schiffrin states that language is always communicative because in any case it is directed at an addressee, be it an actual or intended recipient (1987:5). In this connection, Lyons (1977:638) claims that many features which are connected with the structure of languages “can only be explained on the assumption that they have developed for communication in face-to-face interaction”, which conforms to Schiffrin’s assupmtion that “language is designed for communication” (1987:6).

I find all these assumptions valid and logical. They are based on the nature of language as such and are intrinsically related to the pragmatic aspects of involvement. Face-to-face conversation, be it formal or informal, is very interactional in its nature and thus it shows a high degree of involvement. This research of linguistic means expressing involvement in political interviews confirms that context plays a crucial role when defining functions of these linguistic means, as the analysis presented in this thesis will show.