Speech Act Theory
(Austin 1955, Searle 1969)
Speech act theory is a logico-philosophic perspective on conversational organization focusing on interpretation rather than the production of utterances in discourse. It provides the insight that the basic unit of conversational analysis must be functionally motivated rather than formally defined one. Every utterance can be analyzed as the realization of the speaker’s intent (illocutionary force) to achieve a particular purpose.
It has principal problems like: the lack of a one-to-one matchup between discourse function (IF) and the grammatical form.
Interactional Sociolinguistics
(Gumperz 1982, Goffman 1959-1981)
It centrally concerned with the importance of context in the production and interpretation of discourse. It has grammatical and prosodic features in interactions for its unit of analysis.
According to Schiffrin (1987), interactional sociolinguistic focused on quantitative interactive sociolinguistic analysis, esp. discourse markers (defined as ‘sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of talk). She argues for the importance of qualitative and quantitative / distributional analysis in order to determine the function of the different discourse markers in conversation.
Ethnography of Communication
(Dell Hymes (1972b, 1974)
According to Hymes 1972:56, speech event refers to ‘activities … that are directly governed by rules or norms for the use of speech’
It concerned with understanding the social context of linguistic interactions: ‘who says what to whom, when, where. Why, and how’.
There are problems in this communication such as: lack of explicitness on the relationship between genre and other components of the speaking grid and their expression in language. And the second problem is the recognition of the close relationship between speech events and their social/cultural contexts.
Pragmatics
(Grice 1975, Leech 1983, Levinson 1983)
It formulates conversational behavior in terms of general “principles” rather than rules. It also provides useful means of characterizing different varieties of conversation.
This principle is the broken down into specific maxims:
· Quantity (say only as much as necessary)
· Quality (try to make your contribution one that is true)
· Relation (be relevant)
· Manner (be brief and avoid ambiguity)
The problem in pragmatics is: it implies that conversations occur co-operatively, between equals where power is equally distributed etc.
Conversation Analysis (CA)
(Harold Garfinkel 1960s-1970s)
CA is a branch of ethnomethodology. It is use to understand how social members make sense of everyday life.
Models conversation as infinitely generative turn-taking machine, where interactants try to avoid lapse: the possibility that no one is speaking.
There are some problems in CA:
a) lack of systematicity- thus quantitative analysis is impossible;
b) Limited I its ability to deal comprehensively with complete, sustained interactions
c) Though offers a powerful interpretation of conversation as dynamic interactive achievement, it is unable to say just what kind of achievement it is
Variation Analysis
(Labov 1972a, Labov and Waletzky1967)
Labov & Waletzky argue that fundamental narrative structures are evident in spoken narratives of personal experience.
The overall structure of fully formed narrative of personal experience involves six stages:
1) Abstract
2) Orientation
3) Complication
4) Evaluation
5) Resolution
6) Coda
The problem in data analysis is the data was obtained from interviews.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar