An Overview of Discourse Analysis

CHAPTER II THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 An Overview of Discourse Analysis

Discourse is the study about a text. It is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the contexts in which it is used. It has to be found on a study of the system of the language. The main reason for studying the system is to throw light on discourse, on what people say, write, listen to and read. We have to focus both the system and text. There are two forms of text that are not strange to be known. They are written text and spoken language. Kress 1985: 27 says that there are differences between discourse and text that are shown by this table below: No. Discourse Text 1. Meaning Expression 2. Function or content Form or material 3. Sociological basic Linguistic basic 4. Social significance Structure of language 5. Social dominant Linguistic dominant From those differences above, we can say that discourse is closely related to the social term and text is closely related to the linguistic term. Kress also says that the relationship between discourse and text can be explained in two ways. They are: 1 Text is realization of discourse. This is a direct relation. In this sense specific aspects of a discourse constitute determinative and constitutive Universitas Sumatera Utara factors of text. In other words, the presence of any linguistic feature in a text always points to some aspects of the discourse of which the text is an expression; 2 Discourse is associated to social institutions that favor a certain genre type or kind of text. A discourse is determined by a social institution that favors a certain genre and it is the genre that determines and constitutes the form of any text. There are many writers who give definitions of discourse. Followings are some of the definitions: 1 Stubbs 1983: 1 says that discourse is a language above the sentence or above the clause; 2 McCarthy 1992: 12 says that discourse analysis is not only concerned with the description and analysis of spoken interaction. From those definitions of discourse analysis above, we may conclude that discourse uses the written or spoken passage to convey something. It also has the highest and complete grammatical unit, coherent and cohesive in meaning, formed from clauses, sentences and units. Discourse analysis is not only concerns with the description and analysis of spoken interaction. In addition to all our verbal encounters we can find many kinds of discourse that we have to know. They are: literary works, education fields, pedagogical sciences, sciences, children compositions, communication in the class between teacher and students, language in the text books, translations, semiotic codes, films, symbols, comic strips, dramas, TV programs, newspapers, articles, letters, stories, recipes, notices, instructions, billboards, leaflets pushed Universitas Sumatera Utara through the door, and so on. We usually expect them to be coherent, meaningful communications in which the words and sentences are linked to one another in a fashion that corresponds to the conventional formula, just as we do with speech. Therefore discourse analysis is equally interested in the organization of written interaction. Schiffrin 1994: 21 says that discourse is often defined in two ways. They are: a particular unit of language above the sentences and a particular focus on language use. These two definitions of discourse, he reflects the differences between formalist and functionalist. 1 Formalist tends to regard language primarily as a mental phenomenon. Functionalist tends to regard it primarily as a social phenomenon; 2 Formalist tends to explain linguistic universal a deriving from a common genetic linguistic inheritance of human species. Functionalist tends to explain them as deriving from the universality of the uses to which language is put in human society; 3 Formalist is inclined to explain children’s acquisition of language in term of a built in human capacity to learn language. Functionalist is inclined to explain it in the term of the development of the children’s communicative needs and abilities in society; 4 Above all formalist studies language as an autonomous system whereas functionalist studies it in relation to its social function. From the explanation above, we may conclude that between formalist and functionalist show us that in social life or human life the definitions of discourse are really exist. Universitas Sumatera Utara

2.2 Systemic Functional Linguistics Theory