TASK 17 DISCUSSION GROUP

 

1. ANDIRA AGUSTIN A1B020009

2. DESTI PRASAJA A1B020035

3. SHERLY TIARA DITA A1B020033

4. MEGA WIJAYA PUTRI  A1B020031

5. WINDU CAHYA MAHARANI A1B020035 

 

  Discussion Group

Pragmatics and discourse analysis are closely linked fields of study that share a significant overlap, to the extent that they can be considered sister disciplines. This current study aims to explore their relationship, highlighting their similarities and identifying their differences. In order to achieve the study's objectives, several procedures will be followed, including:

(1) Reviewing relevant literature pertaining to both pragmatics and discourse analysis,

(2) Conducting a thorough comparison between these two fields, and

(3) Formulating conclusions based on the study's findings.

Pragmatics and discourse analysis are often viewed as interdisciplinary because they both focus on language aspects that are dependent on context. According to Barron and Schneider (2014: 1), discourse analysis is not regarded as separate from pragmatics but rather seen as an integral part of it. Consequently, the pragmatics of discourse and the pragmatics of utterance are seen as complementary levels of analysis, emphasizing broader and more localized aspects of human interaction, respectively.

 

A.    Analysing Discourse in Context

According to Culling (2002:2), pragmatics and discourse analysis share many similarities in terms of their investigation of context, text, and function. Both fields focus on the significance of language in communication, recognizing that interlocutors convey more than just the literal meaning of words. They also study discourse and text, exploring how linguistic units become meaningful and interconnected for users. Furthermore, both fields have a common interest in the function of language.

Similarly, Puig (2003:1) suggests that pragmatics and discourse analysis go beyond formal descriptions of phrases and instead concentrate on higher-level components such as speech acts and conversational turns. Both approaches also examine context and its structuring. However, pragmatics places more emphasis on identifying the speaker's intention and uncovering covert elements that the hearer needs to access.

In terms of the differences between pragmatics and discourse analysis, Coulthard (1985; vii) explains that discourse analysis specifically focuses on how language stretches beyond the sentence level are connected and woven together. It aims to describe the construction of suprasentential text or social transactions by applying certain analytical frameworks to the data, whether explicitly or implicitly.

 

B.     Analysis the Co-text

Song (2010; 876-877) asserts that co-text plays a crucial role in aiding interactants in interpreting utterances, serving functions such as removing ambiguity, specifying referents, and distinguishing conversational implicatures. However, there are different types of co-text that can be identified. One type is referred to as linguistic context or co-text, which encompasses all the other words present within the same phrase or sentence. This linguistic context significantly influences the determination of the meaning of a particular word. Another type of context is the physical context, where the physical surroundings or location guide the interpretation of meaning (Yule, 1985: 98-99). As a result, it can be inferred that pragmatics focuses on the physical context, while discourse analysis is primarily concerned with co-text and its impact on meaning.

 

C.    Using Speech Act

The concept of speech acts was initially introduced by Austin (1962) and further developed by his student, Searle (1969). In Austin's book, "How to Do Things with Words," he proposes that when speakers utter certain statements, they are actually performing specific actions. According to Austin, there are three types of acts performed by an utterance: locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act. However, Austin restricts the term "speech act" to refer exclusively to the second type, the illocutionary act (Levinson, 1983: 236).

There is a debate among philosophers and linguists, as noted by Moeschler (1998: 2), regarding the extension of speech act theory to discourse analysis. The argument revolves around the notion that conversation consists of a series of speech acts. This argument suggests that "speech acts are not isolated moves in communication; they occur within larger units of communication defined as conversations or discourses." Van Dijk (1977: 213) supports this idea by stating that speech acts typically occur in sequences, such as an assertion followed by an explanation or addition, an assertion followed by a correction or alternative, or an assertion followed by a denial or contradiction.           

For example: "I need money. Can you lend me a thousand dollars?"

In the given example, the first speech act is performed to establish conditions for the subsequent speech act. It can be said that the former provides a reason or motivation for the latter.