Any question dealing with the course has to be raised into the forum that I may answer and, on the other hand, you can see my possible response by no more than 48 hours. Best regards.

Via E-mail:

Except times of emergencies, I may answer your questions or support you with data delving into the hub of the lecture within 48 hours.

Introduction to the lecture:

Discourse analysis, a field uneasy to define, answer or frame in one insight; yet, what is to hold in mind is that DA is a human cognitive activity and is rooted back to 2000 years ago. After paging various books dealing with discourse analysis, it turns out that this later can be studied from different perspectives; it begets tentacular notions that cannot be neglected. Indeed, many founding fathers, like Schifrin, Spiltzer, Hodges, and Foucault studied DA from different perspectives and each one amongst concentrated on one bipolar aspect at least (body language, sociolinguistics, language beyond sentence approach, critical discourse, etc.)

Studying discourse analysis:

In order to learn about DA, it is quite fair to trail from where it starts. Doing so aids amassing sound heedful tips that prompt and caution not to frame an analysis except by doing all the possibilities of forms of language that might intervene and get intermeshed with the released “code.” Now that it is a bit getting simpler, let’s pen again some authors’ definitions. Leo Spitzer defined as “the examination of any significant semiotic event” – some say he is the first who wrote about DA. Semiotics, on the other hand, is the study of signs (iconic, indexical or symbolic, and also signifier or signified) and how they function in the construction of meaning. Foucault defined discourse analysis as “not just the language of an individual communication, but the larger systems of thought within a particular historical location that make certain things ‘thinkable’ and ‘sayable,’ and regulating who can say them”. Paul Gee realised DA into two basic approaches: descriptive (largely linguistic) and critical (applied or political – power of language in society). Schefferin made clear that DA can be better divided into three domains: formal linguistic discourse analysis which deals with the semantics microanalysis and grammar, empirical discourse analysis which deals with language and social practices, and finally critical discourse analysis which deals with many forms of language that are doable for individual to say or think.

Delving into discourse analysis:

Following the different definitions above-mentioned renders that discourse analysis has always been truly studied differently; some rely on two approaches, while other choose three instead. If this is the case, then discourse analysis can be wholly summed up in the three following aspects.

- Neutral Linguistic aspect: it focuses more on oral language or texts (sociolinguistics for example). Furthermore, the tools of its analysis stand on the semantic aspect and grammar stretch. It is indeed a microanalysis of linguistic, grammatical and semantic rules. In other words – if well depicted – it is the mathematical analysis of language. This part depends on two important segments but not limited to: semantics and pragmatics, and all a bit of phonology, phonetics, syntax and morphology. This phase can be also called “language beyond sentence”, which is pretty much spread phrasing amongst linguists (diagraming sentences and scrutinising formal properties).

- Language in use: mostly based on applied linguistics, conversational analysis, ethnolinguistics (ethnomethodology), and most importantly the sociology of language, not sociolinguistics. This part knocks that analysing a piece of language derailed of its social core context leads to haziness of decoding. Moreover, it shall not be confused with pragmatics. If pragmatics is controlled by settings, then language in use, or as some linguists name it empirical discourse analysis, deals with social affect away of formal, objective use of language (its standards).

- Social practices: mainly based on critical discourse analyses and social sciences. This reminds of the “thinkable” and “sayable” approach about masculinity in a particular time period and place (what is expected from a guy to say it and how), for example. Social practices encompass non-linguistic and non-specific instances of language by excellence. Non-linguistic part reminds, as well, of psycholinguistics, which is, on the other hand, an intricate field of discussion. Instead of not analysing body language, behaviourism, facial expression, some researchers included even the clothes of speakers in DA and framing the resolution of the sent code (piece of language).

Conclusion:

It is quite sharp significant to keep in mind that dealing with segments of DA is never single-approached, meaning analysing some body postures deal with ethnolinguistics and deep social interpretations to such body orientations. In addition, analysing someone who knows about DA can never be adaptable. The reader may have an ample vision about discourse analysis in the schema below

Prerequisites:

Students must have ample knowledge about linguistics, particularly semantics, semiotics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics and sociology of language. The lack of some concepts comprehensions leads to misunderstanding.

Learning outcomes:

The sharp target of this field, discourse analysis, is to be capable of analyzing any piece of “language.” Daily communication, weather written of spoken, leads sometime to undetermined codes. Indeed discourse analysis aids at:

- The students will be able to distinguish between forms of language: written, semiotics, implicit, verbal, etc.

- The students will be able to differentiate between leading concepts like semantics and pragmatics.

- The student will be able to analyse and compare successfully between local language and its equivalences when switching from culture one to culture two or from language one to language two.

- The students will be able state focal point of critical conversation analysis and, thus, predict how debates or conversations in general are going to be shaped. As is the case, he will be then able to conclude and lead the conversation the way he wishes – if he is part of the conversation – or estimate how the conversation will be concluded.

Detailed rules of operation:

The lecture is organised into:

- A theoretical course wherein the contact is about to remind of the prerequisites that aid the student to comprehend more about the field of discourse analysis.

- Not like TD’s or TP’s forms of lecturing, discourse analysis is based on magistral teaching in which the teacher is the central source of the lecture (classical method), but at the same time students are urged once each 15 days to present researches completing other notions about discourse analysis, like ethnolinguistics, behaviourism, critical thinking, maxims, etc.

Handy Sources:

Resources are available on the platform:

- The user manual of the software: this resource is essential because you will use it to be able to realize your TD

- Links to packages: highly recommended resources because during the design you will be faced with different situations that require different tools.

- A handbook which contains information on the use of the instructions.

Last modified: Monday, 18 May 2020, 6:21 AM

Course plan (plan de cours)

Information sur le cours :

References and Data Aiding Lecturing:

Availability:

Reponses on the forum: