A key notion of discourse analysis is a concept of discourse community. Discourse community is a group of people who share some kind of activity such as member of a club or association who have regular meeting. Or a group of student who go to classes at the same university. Members of a discourse community have particular ways of communicating with each other. They generally have shared goal and may have shared value and beliefs. Swales (1990) provides a set of characteristic for identifying a group of people as members of a particular discourse community, the group must have some set of shared common goals, some mechanisms for communication, and some way of providing the exchange of information amongst its member . The community must have its own particular genres, its own set of specialized terminology and vocabulary, and a high level of expertise in its particular area. These goals may be formally agreed upon (as in the case of clubs and associations) ‘or they may be more tacit’ (Swales 1990:24). The ways in which people communicate which each other and exchange information will vary according to the group. This might include meeting, newsletter, casual conversations or a range of other types of written and/or spoken communications. That is, the discourse community will have particular ways for communicating with each other and ways of getting things done that have developed through time.
Discourse communities also interact with wider speech communities. For example, the academic discourse community of students and academics also interacts with the wider speech community of the town or city in which the academic institution is located (Swales 1993). It is for these reasons that some people prefer the term communities of practice (Wenger 1998; Barton and Tusting 2005) to the term ‘Discourse community’. The notion of discourse community is not. However, as straight forward a concept as it might seems. There are often discourse communities within discourse analysis. Swales’ (1998) book Other Floors, Other Voices shows this well. Swales carried out a study of the building in which he was working at the time at the university of Michigan. He worked on the top floor of a small university building. The other floors were occupied by the computing resource site and a herbarium. He looked at the kinds of activities people working in each floor were engaged in and the kinds of text they wrote. He also interview members of staff to get an understanding of why they wrote the kinds of texts they did. He found that people on each floor wrote quite different texts and were an example of discourse community of their own. Swales propose the notion of place discourse community to account for this kind of situations.
Devitt (2004: 42 - 4) adds to this discussion by proposing three types of group of language user: communities, collectives and networks. Communities are ‘groups of people who share substantial amounts of time together in common endeavors’, such as a group of people who all work in the same office. Collectives are group of people that ‘form around a single repeated interest, without the frequency or intensity of contact of community’, such as people who are members of a bee-keeping group, or voluntary members of community telephone advice service. Network is group of people that are not tightly knit as speech communities with connection being made by one person ‘who knows another person, who knows another person’. Such as connections that are made through email messages sent and received by people who may never have (or never will) met each other but are participating in a common discourse.
2.2 Speech communities and spoken and written discourse
Speech community is a boarder than the term discourse community. According to Richard Nordquist, speech community is a term in sociolinguistics and linguistics anthropology for a group people who use the same variety of a language and who share specific rules for speaking and for interpreting speech. It includes discourse communities and the repertoire and varieties of languages that members of the speech community use to interact with each other. Speech community is important for the discussions of spoken and written discourse. In linguistics, a speech community refers to any a group of people that speak the same language.
Defining a speech community
There are some factors that make easier to define a speech community other than just language. Those are social, geographical, cultural, political and ethnic factors, race, age and gender.
Not all of speakers always be full members of particular speech communities. For example is in the case of second language setting. For example, a speaker may participate, only to a certain degree, in the target speech community. The degree to which occurs may be due to factors such as age to entry into the speech community, the speech community’s attitudes and expectations towards the place of second language speakers in the speech community or other factors such as educational or occupational opportunities, limitations in the particular speech community. It also can depend on the other factor such as on a person’s degree of proficiency in the second language and the extent to which they want to be part of the second language speech community.
Speech community may be quite separate or overlap or intersect with each other. Speakers often have repertoire of social identities and speech community memberships each of which is associated with particular kinds of verbal and non-verbal expression.
2.3. Discourse and language choice
Discourse and language choice is a variation of language when we interact with the other communities as explained by Holmes (2001) that the choice of language is being used in such as, with family, among friends, and in religious, educational and employment settings. Social factors such as who we are speaking to, the social context of the interaction, the topic, function and goal of the interaction, social distance between speakers, the formality of the setting or type of interaction and the status of each of the speakers are also important for accounting for the language choice that a person makes in these kinds of settings.
“A speaker or writer may also be the speaker of a particular language variety but be using that variety to communicate with a wider speech community than just their own. The best seller Eats, Shoots & Leaves” (Truss 2003) for examples:
2.4. Discourse, Social class and Social Networks
Social Class and Social networks are a the way we spoken or written with the other but we have to use the words or speech be right and polite such as when we speak or write something to family we use the word be polite.
According to Milroy (1997: 60-1) explain:
“Social networks and social class represent different orders of generalization about social organization. Class accounts for the hierarchical structure of society …, whereas network deals with the dimension of solidarity at the level of the individual and his or her everyday contacts”.
2.5. Discourse and Gender
Simone de Beauvoir famously said ‘one is not born, but rather becomes a woman’. Performativity is based on the view that in saying something, we do or become it. A person learns, for example, how to do and turn display, being a woman in a particular social setting, of a particular social class. People perform particular identities through their use of language and other way of expressing themselves in their interactions with each other. Mostly, this is done unconsciously as we repeat acts such as gesture, movement, and way of using the language that signify, or index a particular identity. These acts are not, however, natural nor are they part of the essential attributes of a person. They are part of what people acquire in their interactions with each other.
Lakoff (1975) proposed what she called women’s language; that is a use of language that is different from men’s language or rather, what she termed ‘neutral language’. This language, she argued, included feature such as the use of overly polite forms, the use of question tags, rising intonation in declarative the avoidance of expletives, a greater use of diminutives and euphemism, the use of more hedges and mitigating devise, more indirectness and the use of particular vocabulary items such as ‘adorable, charming, and sweet’ (woman language) versus ‘great, terrific, and cool’ (neutral language). This use of language, she argued, made woman’s language tentative and, couple with the use of demeaning and trivializing term for women, work to keep the women in their place in society. These differences, she argued were the result of, and reinforced, men’s dominance over women.
Lakoff’s book led to two separate view of women’s language the dominance approach and the difference (or cultural) approach. Spender’s (1980) man made language is an example of the dominance approach which sees differences in the use of language as a result of men’s domination over women. This view focuses on the distribution of power in society and argues that women’s language reflects women’s subordinate position and society and persists to keep them in that position (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 2003). Participants in discourse, in this view, collude in sustaining and perpetuating male dominance and female expression in society.
Tannen’s (1990) you just don’t understand is an example of the difference approach. Tannen argued that boys and girls live in different subcultures in the way that people from different social and ethnic backgrounds might be described as being part of different subcultures. As a consequence boys and girls grow up learning different ways of using language and communicating with people in other cultural group (for example, men).
In a critique of both the dominance and difference views of language and gender, Cameron (1998) argues that expression of gender and power are always context-specific and need to be understood in relation to who the person is speaking to, ‘from what position and for what purpose’ (Cameron 1998:451); that is what the use of language means in terms of the relationship between the speakers in the particular situation in which the interaction occurs.
The discussion of how men and women speak, and what they do as they speak, has also been extended to how people speak about men and women. Holmes (2004), for example, compared the use of the terms woman and lady and found that the social significance of these terms has changed over the last 30 years. She found women, for example, has moved from being mark impolite at the time Lakoff was writing to a situation where this is no longer the case (although woman is more frequently use in written British English than in spoken British English). She also found that while lady /ladies may be used as a politeness marker in formal settings (as it was becoming at the time Lakoff was writing), nowadays, in informal settings, it is also used to trivialize and patronize.
As Cameroon and Kulick (2003, 57) argue, ‘the relationship between language and gender is almost always indirect, mediated by something else’. The ways that people speak are, in the first instance, associated with particular roles, activities and personality traits, such as being a mother, gossiping and being modest (Cameron and Kulick 2003).
So, gender is only one part of person’s social identity, and it is an aspect which will be more or less salient in different contexts. In some contexts, for example, it may be more important to emphasise one’s personal expertise, one ethnic identity. Or one’s age than one gender. (Holmes 1997:9)
2.6. Discourse and sexuality
Discourse and sexuality is about how language interacts to sexuality. Exactly discourse and society has correlation with the topic of gender and discourse which the language are using by human it depend with gender such as woman who has identity how their language. The polite form of language, use of question tag, rising intonation in declarative and the other politeness, it is the particular part of woman language. It is difference with the style of men. They often use word such as “ehmm”, “do you know”, “swetee” and etc.
Gender as we know that it is constructed by social. Sexuality is the human unconscious desire until made over. Desire in this context is the guide thing is no awareness control. Which is as example have desire to intimate for man to the other man overly. We call it gay. Gay is “a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual” (Wikipedia). Homosexual is “from ancient Greek meaning “same” and Latin sexus, meaning “sex”) is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.”(Wikipedia). Desire is “encompasses more than just the preference for partner of the same or other sex: it also deals with the non-intentional, non- conscious and non-rational dimensions of human sexual life.” It also have identity are consciously namely gay, lesbian, straight and etc. Gay is men who less of masculine and has sex with other men. Lesbian is romantic love and sexual attraction by female or homosexual by female.
There many characterize of language used by homosexual. Hayes’s claim the characterized is used argot (a secret language are used by some community), innuendo (“ is an insinuation or imitation about person or thing especially of denigrating or a derogatory nature” Wikipedia), categorization, strategic evasions is like omitting or changing gendered pronouns. There are three theoretically of gay speak:
1. To protect the identity or against the exposure and use innuendo
2. When express about gay to careful, and doesn’t the vocabulary are defining sexual roles and behaviors
3. Politicizing social life as the source activities.
2.7. Discourse and identity
every people has their identity in their life it can be identity as a women an identity as mother an identity as a father and also identity as a someone dealt with their job or profession Their identity can be seen when their making conversation with the other using language Blommaert pointed out that the information a person give of about themselves that show their identity depend much on the contexts occasion and the purpose of the discourse the way people write down an online it also show their identity the By the way the write people will know your identity violetta: I’d have whole typing styles for people like if I were trying to trick someone I know into thinking I was someone else I’d type a lot differently than I do normally A person’s typing style can give them away like their voice does (Thomas)
Identity and casual conversation
Casual conversation is type of talk in which people feel more relaxed most spontaneous it means that if we doing casual conversation they establish solidarity through the confirmation of similarities the way the casual conversation same like all the spoken interactions where it is influenced by the relationship between the people speaking.
Identity and written and academic discourse
Written and academic discourse dealt with they or people or student that should be write their discourse in their second language while the way that they should be write is having different way from their fist language.
2.8. Discourse and Ideology
As Threadgold (1989) observes, text are never ideology free nor objective. Nor can they be separated from the social realities and processes they contribute to maintaining. Foe Threagold, spoken and written genre are not just linguistic categories but among the very processes by which dominant ideologies are reproduced, transmitted and potentially changed (1989:107)
There are a number of ways in which ideology might be explored in a text. The analysis may start by looking at textual features in the text and move from there to explanation and interpretation of the analysis. This may include tracing underlying ideologies from the linguistic features of a text, unpacking particular biases and ideological presupposition underlying the text and relating the text to other text and to reader and speaker own experiences and beliefs ( Clark 1995).
The example is Carrie had just discovered an engagement ring in her boyfriend. Aiden's overnight bag. She then went into the kitchen and vomited. She is telling her friends about this incident:
Charlotte: You're getting engaged!
Carrie: I threw up. I saw the ring and I threw up. That’s not normal.
Samantha: That’s my reaction to marriage
Miranda: what do you think you might do if he asks?
Carrie: I don’t know
Charlotte: Just say yessss!!!
Carrie: Well, it hasn’t been long enough has it?
Charlotte: Trey and I got engaged after only a month.
Samantha: How long before you separated?
Charlotte: We are together now and that’s what matters. When it’s right you just know.
Samantha: Carrie doesn’t know
Carrie: Carrie threw up
Samantha: So it might not be right…
A key term in literary and cultural value as fore grounded in the conversation, if a man asks a woman to marry him she should ‘Just say Yes’ (the title of the episode). Other value and background or rather omitted, such as Carrie’s views on Aiden’s occupation, ethnic background and social class possibly because the audience of the show already knows this (no because, in this case, they are not relevant).
An analysis of this kind takes the level of description to a deeper understanding of text and provides, as far as might be possible, some kind of explanation of why a text might be as it is and what it is aiming to do. The relationship between language, social norms and values to describe, interpret and explain this relationship. In doing so, it aims to provide a way of exploring and perhaps challenging some of hidden and out of sight social, cultural and political values the underline the use of spoken and written discourse.
REFFERENCE
Partridge, Brian. (2006). Discourse Analysis. New York: The Tower Building
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar