Up on your understanding of dicsourse structure, I would like to share your ideas about the minimal structure of a discourse. Discourse analyists suggest and recommend that for discourse analysis the structure of discourse should not be less than two sentences. However, in the discourse of everyday communication sometimes we encounter the use of sign language or facial expressions and body movements. More particularly, in some places and institutions such as post offices or airports we usually find posters and wall signs telling us not to smoke or lead us to mens' and womens' toilets. The question here is that can we consider these signs and posters to be discourse or not. Thanking you for exhanging your views and comments.
There's a question phrase in Armenian , I assume, there are similar ones in other languages too, that consists of 3 words only: (inch ka chka? - meaning "What is/isn't there (new)?). Still, it can imply a multilayered discourse structure depending on the non-verbal context. Why not differentiate between text and discourse before trying to structure the latter.
Dear Gayane Hovhannisyan,
Text has been clearly defined: it is any written or spoken message! Any definition/ or discussion of discourse needs to include certain context!
Abdullah Al-Eryani & Nibras Husein Mhawesh
and Gayane HovhannisyanAlthough there is some context in signs (the shared knowledge with the reader or listener) in addition to the text (the sign itself), I do not think that this amounts to discourse here - since the message is not extended to further texts + context!
I mean although there is a text and context in the sign example, the text is not enough (too short) and thus needs to be extended further to be called discourse.
I agree with your argument that a text of (a sign) is not enough to be considered as a discourse in terms of its textual structure. However, coherence in discourse is much more essential for the texturness of a text to be a discourse. Therefore, any sign has a kind of mutual comperhension (contextual interaction) between the reader and the writer (the one who has a message behind making such sign).
Discourse and pragmatics share common issues on the study of language as both of them investigate language in use, i.e., the contextual background of speech or conversation.
Yeah but the discourse description needs to be more specific! That is why I was reluctant to regards a sign as a discourse. Actually I consider is part of a discourse structure, rather than discourse by itself!
Your ideas are so interesting. Thanks a million for your responses and contributions.
Abdullah Al-Eryani
You are more than welcome. It is me who need to thank you.
Thanks for this interesting question.
From the point of view of the discourse analysis , in major discursive units, (intonative periods) beyond which, there are no more intonative constraints (Hazaël-Massieux [1983], Anne Lacheret (2002, 2003). These are units of very variable size. Their formal characteristic is that they end with the major continuative, a marker of intonative dominance over the entire segment. The minimum unit would therefore be in this perceptual a group of words (at least in French) carrying a demarcative accent on the last syllable.
The written is a more or less adequate transposition of the oral. If the major discursive unit is considered as an autonomous unit, the sentence can be considered to meet this constraint.
It all depends on the subject of your analysis, oral or written? You talk about gestures, I deduce that your analysis focuses more on oral discourse. In this case, you will need specific oral tools, which serve to segment the speech. The sentence is not one of them.
You also mention the posters, which are speeches. You can look at the semiology side of advertising posters.
Bests regards
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics