0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
55 vizualizări12 pagini
SETTING Where, when, and under what circumstanances take place a separete kind of information constitute called setting. Setting is important in the study of discourse not only because it characteristically involve distinctive grammatical construction like locative. Some of information in narrative is not part of the narratives themselves, but stands outside them and clarifies them.
SETTING Where, when, and under what circumstanances take place a separete kind of information constitute called setting. Setting is important in the study of discourse not only because it characteristically involve distinctive grammatical construction like locative. Some of information in narrative is not part of the narratives themselves, but stands outside them and clarifies them.
Drepturi de autor:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formate disponibile
Descărcați ca PPS, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
SETTING Where, when, and under what circumstanances take place a separete kind of information constitute called setting. Setting is important in the study of discourse not only because it characteristically involve distinctive grammatical construction like locative. Some of information in narrative is not part of the narratives themselves, but stands outside them and clarifies them.
Drepturi de autor:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formate disponibile
Descărcați ca PPS, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
Dosen pembimbing 4.Prof. Dr. H. Abd Muis Ba’dulu, M.S 5.Prof. Dr. Arifuddin Hamra
Discourse Analysis “NONEVENTS IN
DISCOURSE”
JURUSAN PENDIDIKAN BAHASA
PROGRAM STUDI PENDIDIKAN BAHASA DAN SASTRA INGGRIS PROGRAM PASCASARJANA UNIVERSITAS NEGERI MAKASSAR SETTING
Where, when, and under what circumstatances take place a separete kind of information constitute called setting. Setting is important in the study of discourse not only because it characteristically involve distinctive grammatical construction like locative, but also because it is common basis for segmentation of sequential text into their components parts. It is tricky to distinguish setting from the range role. Either may, for example, take the form of a locative like a prepositional phrase. One text that seems to work in a number of languages is the test of separability. Settings in a space are frequently distinguished from settings in time. All languages probably have the capability for defining a spatial setting by description. Spasial settings many be redefined during the course of a text either by describing where each new setting is located, as seems normal in English, or by a relative redefinition that takes the most recent settings as its point of departure. The scope of a spatial setting may be broad or narrow. Settings in time are equally important. Temporal setting, like spatial setting, must be distinguished from the temporal properties inherent in a particular action. Whether an action followed its predecessor immediately or after a lapse, whether its effects are said to persist, all are dependent of the general time framework of the narrative, just as the place where as action orseries of action happens is independent of those elements of location (range) that are an integral part of the definition of the action. Descriptive definitions of time are usually with reference to some kind of calendric system. The term is used broadly to include bit only explicit calendric references. Another kind of time definition makes us of reference to memorable events. This can shade off into a calendric system of its own in the case of dynastics or definitions of years by outstanding events. BACKGROUND
Some of information in narrative is not part of the narratives themselves, but stands outside them and clarifies them. Events, participants, and setting are normally the primary components of narrative, while explanation and comments about what happens have a secondary role that may be reflected in the use of distinctive grammatical patterns. Much of the secondary information that is used to clarify a narrative ( called background for convenience, even though the form may be misleading for non-consequential texts when explanatory information could be thought of as being in the foreground ) has a logical sounding structure, frequently tied together with words like because and therefore. It is an attemp to explain. It has this explanatory from even when the logic in it is invalid or when it falls short of really explaining what it purports to explain. Explanations, either as secondary part of narrative or as the central theme of texts, often involve premises that the speakers feels are generally accepted and therefore can be left unsaid. Sometimes what is unstated brings consternations to a linguist from abother culture who is not yet in a position to supply the missing pieces of the argument. The handling of the structure of explanations actually sheds light on the depth and sensitivity of the speaker’s estimate of who the hearer is; because even in cultures where nearly all parts of an explanation or argument are assumed, if the hearer makes it sufficiently clear that he does not follow, most speakers will restate themselves in an attemp to make up for his lack of understanding. This is less likely to hold relatively homogeneous and isolated cultures, where many of life’s activities depend upon the assumption that everyone shares the same fund of information. EVALUATIONS
Not only do speakers report the state of the world; they also tell they feel about it. The addition internal feeling to other kinds of information ( which is not the same as a simple reporting of what one’s internal feeling are ) involves specific modes of linguistic expression. Often evaluation are imputed to the hearer or to other people referred to in the discourse. Any participant in a discourse can be assumed to have his own opinion of things, and the speaker may feel that knows what those opinions are sufficiently well to include them. There is, however, a restriction that is pointed out in manuals of Another kind of evaluation is that of the culture within which the speaker is speaking, the conversation of the society he represents. Not everything in a discourse has to be evaluated. For this reason, it is useful to recognize the scope of an evaluative statement. It may be global, embracing an entire discourse, if so, it is lokely to be found either at the beginning as an introductory statement that tells why the rest of the discourse is being told, or at the end as e moral to the story of the tag line in a fable. Evaluations bring the hearer more closely into the narrative; they communicate information about feelings to him that goes beyong the bar cognitive structure of what happened or what deduction is to be made. In conversation, and even in monologues, the hearer may be pressed to give his own evaluation: What do you think? How do you suppose they took that? Evaluative information shades off into background information or even into setting in casses where it serves to buid up the psychological tone of a series of events. COLLATERAL
Some information in a narrative, insteadof telling what did happen, tells what did not happen. It ranges over possible events and in so doing sets off what actually does happen againts what might have happened. Collateral information, simply stated, relates non-events to events. By providing a range of non-events that might take place, it heightens the significance of the real events. The information about what actually does happen, then, may take several forms. If non the collateral expressions give what really happened as one of the alternatives, it must be stated as a distinct event. If was mentioned as part of the collateral, but only to affirm which of the possibilities took place. THE SPEAKER AND HEARER IN DISCOURSE
Both the form and the content of any discourse are influenced by who is speaking and who is listening. The speaker-hearer-situation factors can be represented in linguistic theory of performative information. There are, however, restrictions on performative utterances. They must be in the first percon and present tense. Certain performative are quite common and are free of special limitations on their use. The recognition of implicit performatives behind commands, questions, and statements, as well as explicit performatives, paves the way for a linguistic handling of situational factors in discourse. Specifically, it gives a place in linguistic analysis for what are conventionally known as deictic (pointing) In the case of persons ( and for that matter, objects ) the recognition of the speaker-hearer axis in communication is basis for assignment of person categories. This seems trivial or obvious for a discourse that has a single performative. Performative are pertinent in the identification of paticipants in other cases besides direct discourse, but in different way. In direct discourse, person assignment are taken from some performative more remote than the one thatdominates the statement immediately; that is, the one that constitutes the nearest verb saying that dominates direct discourse higher up the tree of questions. This shows up if we paraphrase the example just In addition to the identification thet relates to performatives, there are other less easily recognizable factors whose effects can be seen the outer form of language and that find their place in the conceptual scheme of linguistics by virtue of their relation to performatives. Here, first of all, is where the speaker’s entire image of himself as a person is accessible to the linguistic system. The performative element not only serves to relate persons to the discourse, but also sets the zero point for time reference. Fastabiqul Khaerat Wallahul Musta’n