Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) emphasizes the role of language in society. It suggests that all linguistic characters are inherently part of and influenced by social structure, and are produced in social interaction. Therefore, it chiefly concerns the social problems and political issues, rather purely an individual action.
Written text predominantly available in library discourse, deploy significant social reproduction in an institutional extent. In this investigation, I will apply the knowledge of CDA to analyze the relationship among discourse, cognition and society reflected upon a leaflet about “How to reserve library materials through the Internet”.
First, I would discuss the concepts of macro and micro theoretical framework of the social order found in this leaflet. Second, I would focus on the social power induced in the institutional setting. And third, I would draw the conclusion of how social order is reflected in and constituted by the text.
Macro vs. Micro framework of Discursive Practice
In a micro level of social order, the discursive practice of guiding readers to follow the instruction denotes how library administrative party produces and how library users follow the steps listed on the written guidelines. This analysis must also be complemented with macro level in order to know the power and dominance posed by an institutional body. The library written guideline is a discourse at the micro level of social interaction between library officers and public library readers. At the same time, it may be a constituent part of institutional regulation or the reproduction of official hegemony, under Leisure and Cultural Service Department, at the macro level.
Power as Control
Dominant group owning more social power means they are more able to control the acts and minds of members of other groups. Take the library as an example, as it contains the authoritative power, in which represents a subsidiary from government, its perceived power is built upon its authority, rather than money, information, or knowledge, in this public discourse. In this practice, the guideline, or to say it as a general consensus, is believed to be the influential power from the library as a dominant group.
We have recognized that the institutional power largely lie upon the library administrative party as the dominant group. Now, let us closely examine how this group controls the public discourse, and what the social consequences are from such control.
Here we regard the library instruction discourse as active control over public library users. Ordinary public users are passive targets of the guidelines. They are shaped to interact within the controlling discourse. To spell the production explicitly, it is the way when they want to reserve library materials through the internet, they follow the topics, lexical items and specific words described from the guidelines. For example, the direct order verb of “Select, Choose, Enter, Note”. Then they perceive the text by applying their mental knowledge of accessing the home page of public library at http://www.hkpl.gov.hk.
The library instruction reproduces dominance and a certain degree of hegetomy, meanwhile, its mind control towards public users can be divided in three aspects. First, readers see the rules as authoritative. Second, the instruction discourse is also interpreted as institutional authors. Third, users seldom challenge the discourse information.
In conclusion, power and dominance are associated with this institutional domain. The guideline, rule and regulation form the background of the everyday discursive reproduction of power in such library domain. Therefore, the readers are highly dependent on institutional power.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Investigation #9 Analyzing Interaction and Social Identity
In the library, the conversation between a library user and a librarian about use of computer service illustrates some interactional sociolinguistics. Given the sociolinguistic context of Hong Kong, the data is in Chinese, with the English translation. The transcription is organized with a line for each participant. Overlap is shown as double slash [//]; one utterance following immediately on from another is shown as equal sign [=].
讀者: (a) 唔該, 我想問係咪可以o係度借電腦用ga?
圖書館職員: (b) 小姐您係想上網定係淨係用唯讀資料檔案呀?
讀者: (c) = er..上網ge
圖書館職員: (d) 麻煩您出示番身份証同埋做煩登記呀!
讀者: (e) = 哦, 好呀
圖書館職員: (f) 請問您想book幾點呀?
讀者: (g) eh..2:30-4:30呀
圖書館職員: (h) 唔好意思wor, 我地係按整點咁計ga
讀者: (i) 哦, 咁2點至4點喇!
圖書館職員: (j) (在登記紙上寫上資料)
圖書館職員: (k) 係度寫番名就得//ga la
讀者: (l) // 哦好呀好呀, 唔該
圖書館職員: (m) 係咪唔洗用printer ga?
讀者: (n) 哦, 唔洗la
圖書館職員: (o) 哦, 得ga la, 63號機// 呀
讀者: (p) // 好呀, 唔該
User: (a) Excuse me I wanna ask..can I use the computer here?
Librarian: (b) You want to access internet or simply check the library catalog?
User: (c) Eh…Internet.
Librarian: (d) Would you please show me your ID card?
User: (e) Ok…
Librarian: (f) Which time slot do you want to book?
User: (g) Eh…2:30 to 4:30 pm
Librarian: (h) Sorry…We count in hourly unit.
User: (i) Ok…Then 2 to 4pm
Librarian: (j) (fill in your information here.)
Librarian: (k) Fill in your name here.
User: (l) Ok…Thanks
Librarian: (m) Don’t you need printer?
User: (n) Ok..No thanks
Librarian: (o) All right…No.63 please.
User: (p) Ok..Thanks.
As interactional control features ensure smooth interactional organization - the distribution of turns, selection and change of topics, opening and closing of interactions, and so forth. Interactional control is always exercised to some extent collaboratively participants, but there may be asymmetry between participants in the degree of control. It is believed that the interactional control of a conversation can embody specific claims about social and power relations between participants. The investigation of interactional control is therefore a means of negotiation of social relations in social practice.
First, for the use of discourse markers, in terms of focus, clarification, contrast, dismissal of previous discourse and consequence, they are barely found in this conversation, mainly because the setting is rather formal and clear question-response structure is more preferred. Rather, the most predominant marker is the use of changing subjuect such as "ok", and undoubting self's answer such as "eh".
Second, for the use of turn-taking, it is also rarely discovered here. According to Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974 and Schenkein 1978, they suggest that "conversation analysis has produced influential accounts of turn-taking in conversation as a collaborative organizational achievement of participants." Linguists also draw a simple set of ordered rules to indicate who takes the turn first: (i) the current speaker may select the next speaker, by addressing her/him; (ii) if that does not happen, any participant may “select herself” as next speaker. Here, in line (b), we find out that the librarian select the next speaker, by addressing the user as Miss. Then in (j), as the librarian does not say anything, instead he just fills in the record sheet, the current speaker continues the utterance in (k).
Third, for the topic control, the librarian is closely controlling the basic organization of the interaction by opening and closing each cycle and acknowledging the library user’s responses. It is mainly the librarian who introduces new topics through his questions, for example, when he shifts in lines (a) to (m), from whether she wants to access internet or simply check the library catalog, to which time slot the user wants to book, to whether she needs the use of printer or not. The only utterance the user introduced is in line (a) for initially requesting the use of computer service.
Another aspect of the librarian’s control is the nature of the question he asks. They are not open questions, giving the user the floor (as “Which computer service do you prefer?”). Rather, it is more or less closed questions which set relatively tight limits on the content of the user’s answers. Some are “yes/no” questions, which require a “yes/ok” or “no” answer, confirming or disconfirming some proposition (e.g. Don’t you need printer?). Other is so-called “wh-questions” beginning with “which”, which elicits specific details of time slot.
It is also instructive to look closely at the relationship between the librarian’s questions and the patient’s answers. In line (k) to (l), the librarian asks the user to fill in her name and then the user follows his turn immediately without a pause. Similarly in line (o) to (p), the librarian signals the user to use computer no. 63, then the user again followed at once by a confirmation. The librarian perhaps is working through a pre-set agenda or routine, shifting another topic as soon as he has enough information. So he can control the user to have a faster response by simply saying “ok”.
Since the practice of booking computer service might be handled many times a day, the librarian gets used to control the topic, rather than the user to control the topic. Also, the absence of overlapping during the talk can be ascribed to the asymmetrical turn-taking system, in which the participant having more authority to hold the control of topic.
讀者: (a) 唔該, 我想問係咪可以o係度借電腦用ga?
圖書館職員: (b) 小姐您係想上網定係淨係用唯讀資料檔案呀?
讀者: (c) = er..上網ge
圖書館職員: (d) 麻煩您出示番身份証同埋做煩登記呀!
讀者: (e) = 哦, 好呀
圖書館職員: (f) 請問您想book幾點呀?
讀者: (g) eh..2:30-4:30呀
圖書館職員: (h) 唔好意思wor, 我地係按整點咁計ga
讀者: (i) 哦, 咁2點至4點喇!
圖書館職員: (j) (在登記紙上寫上資料)
圖書館職員: (k) 係度寫番名就得//ga la
讀者: (l) // 哦好呀好呀, 唔該
圖書館職員: (m) 係咪唔洗用printer ga?
讀者: (n) 哦, 唔洗la
圖書館職員: (o) 哦, 得ga la, 63號機// 呀
讀者: (p) // 好呀, 唔該
User: (a) Excuse me I wanna ask..can I use the computer here?
Librarian: (b) You want to access internet or simply check the library catalog?
User: (c) Eh…Internet.
Librarian: (d) Would you please show me your ID card?
User: (e) Ok…
Librarian: (f) Which time slot do you want to book?
User: (g) Eh…2:30 to 4:30 pm
Librarian: (h) Sorry…We count in hourly unit.
User: (i) Ok…Then 2 to 4pm
Librarian: (j) (fill in your information here.)
Librarian: (k) Fill in your name here.
User: (l) Ok…Thanks
Librarian: (m) Don’t you need printer?
User: (n) Ok..No thanks
Librarian: (o) All right…No.63 please.
User: (p) Ok..Thanks.
As interactional control features ensure smooth interactional organization - the distribution of turns, selection and change of topics, opening and closing of interactions, and so forth. Interactional control is always exercised to some extent collaboratively participants, but there may be asymmetry between participants in the degree of control. It is believed that the interactional control of a conversation can embody specific claims about social and power relations between participants. The investigation of interactional control is therefore a means of negotiation of social relations in social practice.
First, for the use of discourse markers, in terms of focus, clarification, contrast, dismissal of previous discourse and consequence, they are barely found in this conversation, mainly because the setting is rather formal and clear question-response structure is more preferred. Rather, the most predominant marker is the use of changing subjuect such as "ok", and undoubting self's answer such as "eh".
Second, for the use of turn-taking, it is also rarely discovered here. According to Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974 and Schenkein 1978, they suggest that "conversation analysis has produced influential accounts of turn-taking in conversation as a collaborative organizational achievement of participants." Linguists also draw a simple set of ordered rules to indicate who takes the turn first: (i) the current speaker may select the next speaker, by addressing her/him; (ii) if that does not happen, any participant may “select herself” as next speaker. Here, in line (b), we find out that the librarian select the next speaker, by addressing the user as Miss. Then in (j), as the librarian does not say anything, instead he just fills in the record sheet, the current speaker continues the utterance in (k).
Third, for the topic control, the librarian is closely controlling the basic organization of the interaction by opening and closing each cycle and acknowledging the library user’s responses. It is mainly the librarian who introduces new topics through his questions, for example, when he shifts in lines (a) to (m), from whether she wants to access internet or simply check the library catalog, to which time slot the user wants to book, to whether she needs the use of printer or not. The only utterance the user introduced is in line (a) for initially requesting the use of computer service.
Another aspect of the librarian’s control is the nature of the question he asks. They are not open questions, giving the user the floor (as “Which computer service do you prefer?”). Rather, it is more or less closed questions which set relatively tight limits on the content of the user’s answers. Some are “yes/no” questions, which require a “yes/ok” or “no” answer, confirming or disconfirming some proposition (e.g. Don’t you need printer?). Other is so-called “wh-questions” beginning with “which”, which elicits specific details of time slot.
It is also instructive to look closely at the relationship between the librarian’s questions and the patient’s answers. In line (k) to (l), the librarian asks the user to fill in her name and then the user follows his turn immediately without a pause. Similarly in line (o) to (p), the librarian signals the user to use computer no. 63, then the user again followed at once by a confirmation. The librarian perhaps is working through a pre-set agenda or routine, shifting another topic as soon as he has enough information. So he can control the user to have a faster response by simply saying “ok”.
Since the practice of booking computer service might be handled many times a day, the librarian gets used to control the topic, rather than the user to control the topic. Also, the absence of overlapping during the talk can be ascribed to the asymmetrical turn-taking system, in which the participant having more authority to hold the control of topic.
Investigation #7 Analyzing Politeness
In the Central Library, one lady was talking phone regardless of the library rule. A librarian came nearby her and politely warned her.
Librarian: Excuse me, miss. Library regulation requires all users not to talk on phone in library. Would you please go outside?
Lady: (keep talking, did not notice the surroundings)
Librarian: Excuse me, miss. Would you please go outside?
Lady: (disregard the library officers and feel annoyed)
Librarian: Excuse me.. (two other library officers follow him and stand nearby the lady)
Lady: (feel annoyed, frown at the officers, finally end her call)
In the conversation with the lady, who violated the library rule of talking on phone, the librarian made a shift in communicative style. When he first approached that lady, he used a very formal and polite way to address the lady, as Miss. He also referred to the library regulations stated by the nearby notice sincerely. After attempting two times, he was a bit intolerant. So he simply urged the lady to end the call immediately by saying “Excuse me”, and with two other library officers standing nearby the lady.
In the Face theory in sociolinguistics, face, is the public self-image one wishes to claim. We study how participants decide what their relative statuses are, and what language they use to encode their assumptions about such differences in status. In addition, face can also be lost, maintained, or enhanced in different social interactions in the same event.
Here, we find two negative faces coexist among these two participants. First, the librarian poses his positive face as he desires the lady can be cooperative to accept his warn. Meanwhile, he also carries the negative face for maintaining his desire for autonomy. The way he addresses the lady as miss rather than you - a title rather than a familiar personal pronoun, has marked the difference of their relationship. Second, the lady also strongly induces her negative face. As she does not want to be unimpeded, she wants her freedom from interference can be achieved and maintains her personal space. So, she shows an uncooperative attitude to the librarians.
Given the assumptions of the universality of face, it is unavoidably that certain kinds of acts intrinsically threaten face. In this case, for the act that threaten the lady, the hearer, (H)’s negative face, it involves the pressure given by librarian in order to warn her not to use the phone. For the act that threatens H’s positive face, it includes the reprimand, though lenient, towards the lady in a public area. For the act that threaten the librarian, the speaker, (S)’s positive face, it contains the act of incorporation and annoyance shown by lady.
Being rational, people will try to avoid Face Threatening Acts to minimize their effects. Particular in the civil service sector, the library are required to provide library users a neutral service attitude. The autonomy cannot be executed that extreme. Therefore, the desire to maintain face (both H’s and S’s) has to be balanced. Here, as the setting has restricted to be mitigated by showing respect for the lady’s desire not to be disturbed, (“Excuse me, miss, would you please go outside?); it may be made “off record”- the strategy 4 according to the politeness strategy.
There are three main factors involved which bring such a politeness system into being: power, distance, and the weight of the imposition.
Power refers to the vertical disparity between the participants in a hierarchical structure. We would describe the relationship between the librarian and the lady as +P (plus power) because the librarian owes the authority to control library user’s discipline, in response to library regulation, and the lady owes duties to follow rules. Distance refers to the closeness of relationship. We would thereby describe as +D (plus difference) between those two participants. They have the hierarchical difference and would never contact each other. Weight of imposition refers to how important the topic of discussion is for the participants. And we describe it as +W as the librarian takes on a deferential tone to address the lady as miss. He also uses a higher level of independence strategies than he normally uses.
Librarian: Excuse me, miss. Library regulation requires all users not to talk on phone in library. Would you please go outside?
Lady: (keep talking, did not notice the surroundings)
Librarian: Excuse me, miss. Would you please go outside?
Lady: (disregard the library officers and feel annoyed)
Librarian: Excuse me.. (two other library officers follow him and stand nearby the lady)
Lady: (feel annoyed, frown at the officers, finally end her call)
In the conversation with the lady, who violated the library rule of talking on phone, the librarian made a shift in communicative style. When he first approached that lady, he used a very formal and polite way to address the lady, as Miss. He also referred to the library regulations stated by the nearby notice sincerely. After attempting two times, he was a bit intolerant. So he simply urged the lady to end the call immediately by saying “Excuse me”, and with two other library officers standing nearby the lady.
In the Face theory in sociolinguistics, face, is the public self-image one wishes to claim. We study how participants decide what their relative statuses are, and what language they use to encode their assumptions about such differences in status. In addition, face can also be lost, maintained, or enhanced in different social interactions in the same event.
Here, we find two negative faces coexist among these two participants. First, the librarian poses his positive face as he desires the lady can be cooperative to accept his warn. Meanwhile, he also carries the negative face for maintaining his desire for autonomy. The way he addresses the lady as miss rather than you - a title rather than a familiar personal pronoun, has marked the difference of their relationship. Second, the lady also strongly induces her negative face. As she does not want to be unimpeded, she wants her freedom from interference can be achieved and maintains her personal space. So, she shows an uncooperative attitude to the librarians.
Given the assumptions of the universality of face, it is unavoidably that certain kinds of acts intrinsically threaten face. In this case, for the act that threaten the lady, the hearer, (H)’s negative face, it involves the pressure given by librarian in order to warn her not to use the phone. For the act that threatens H’s positive face, it includes the reprimand, though lenient, towards the lady in a public area. For the act that threaten the librarian, the speaker, (S)’s positive face, it contains the act of incorporation and annoyance shown by lady.
Being rational, people will try to avoid Face Threatening Acts to minimize their effects. Particular in the civil service sector, the library are required to provide library users a neutral service attitude. The autonomy cannot be executed that extreme. Therefore, the desire to maintain face (both H’s and S’s) has to be balanced. Here, as the setting has restricted to be mitigated by showing respect for the lady’s desire not to be disturbed, (“Excuse me, miss, would you please go outside?); it may be made “off record”- the strategy 4 according to the politeness strategy.
There are three main factors involved which bring such a politeness system into being: power, distance, and the weight of the imposition.
Power refers to the vertical disparity between the participants in a hierarchical structure. We would describe the relationship between the librarian and the lady as +P (plus power) because the librarian owes the authority to control library user’s discipline, in response to library regulation, and the lady owes duties to follow rules. Distance refers to the closeness of relationship. We would thereby describe as +D (plus difference) between those two participants. They have the hierarchical difference and would never contact each other. Weight of imposition refers to how important the topic of discussion is for the participants. And we describe it as +W as the librarian takes on a deferential tone to address the lady as miss. He also uses a higher level of independence strategies than he normally uses.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Article Critique
The article critique I will be covering is extracted from the Text & Talk 29-2 (2009), entitled as “But it’s all true!”: Commercialism and Commitment in the Discourse of Organic Food Promotion from Guy Cook, Matt Reed, and Alison Twiner. It chiefly holds the debate over marketing language used in organic foods, explores the motivation behind this commercial gimmick, and discusses the social relationship between text producers and consumers.
“But it’s all true” is a thought-provoking article, which consists of rich understandings towards the development of a marketing discourse by applying various analytical methodologies. Inside, it covers the findings of a one-year research project, investigating the discourse of organic food promotion in Britain during 2006. The research project combines corpus analysis, textual analysis, interviews and focus group discussion to look into the latest trend of marketing communication and promotional strategies found in market for organic foods.
In this research, there are three datasets collected for analysis. First, a 500,000 and 250,000- word machine-readable corpus is collected for analyzing frequent words and collocations of organic food and non-organic food promotion respectively. Texts used in product labels, packaging, newsletters, advertisements, reports, press releases are all the materials to be discussed. Second, transcriptions of interviews with sixteen stakeholders responsible for the communicative strategies for promoting organic foods are included. Third, transcriptions and recordings of focus group, comprising different demographic sources, are also coded for discussing product labels and promotional leaflets.
The project pinpoints the evaluation of how entrepreneurial sectors gain the unprecedented boom in organic business. Ideally, the best investigation site would closely be related to a commercial setting. The research team picks up the supermarket as the investigation site to examine how organic movement has adopted the marketing practices of corporate retails. The findings across wordings and presentation skills adopted by product producers mirror the metafunctions in the organic foods discourse.
1. Patterning of Poetic Language
Current packaging of organic food frequently combines similar rhythms of words such as “organic baby new potatoes” and “delicious with chopped mint or chives”. This language tactic seems to impress consumers in a much imagery way. Also, sensational and vague languages are profoundly written in the discourse, particularly for the taste. Words referring to flavor including delicious, mouth-watering, real, succulent, superb are much empty in meaning, in which they are commonly practiced in advertising setting to create a sensational picture to buyers. In addition, analysis has also discovered a trend that there is a proliferation of pre- and post-modifiers to formulate a verb on the description.
2. Excessive use of Personal Pronouns
An apparently casual, dialogic and interactive style is usually applied in the organic product promotion. You-view benefits are highly indicated, by the word form appearance of you, across many organic corpuses than non-organic ones. As mentioned in the article, the word form of you is the 27th most frequent word. Whenever retailers emphasize the need of you, as for consumers, a close relationship between producers and buyers can be built up. Obviously, high degree of personal pronoun over formal addressees (You and We not Farm producers), and familiarity over formal lexis (Mums not Mothers) are preferred by consumers ourselves.
3. Divergent way of Unfolding Message
Apart from word choices, the theme and rheme is also deviated from the original meaning. Suppose the marketing efforts in related fields shall be focused on the positive environmental, health, and social effects the organic products can bring to the customers. Also, contributions including environmental protection, fair trade, community-based production and ethical employment practices are also reasonable messages the products can advertise. The real case however turns to be more like a storytelling description by merely touching the necessity of taste instead of any commitment towards the environment and society.
4. Equivocal Claims of Language
Outside the obligatory data of ingredients, nutrients, product origin and expiry date, the retailers frequently deploy the tactics of vague quantifiers (many people, more people) and modal hedges (could be, tend to) in the discourse of organic food promotion, which easily mislead the consumers to believe the untrue details.
Despite the fact that the textual analysis in this research successfully mirrors a different marketing discourse has been created by organic product producers as for a latest communicative strategy in marketing promotion, the methodology can be further improved in order to achieve a more comprehensive discussion. For example, there is seemingly a limitation and shortcoming that number of respondents in interview groups is insufficient. With only sixteen stakeholders in interview and eight people in focus groups, it is difficult to collect rich insights into questions. Also, inadequate respondents may lead a dishonest response. For example, a writer of corporate promotional material may uphold the point that customers are not simply purchasing a product but at the same time buying a nice feeling influenced by the packaging.
It is obviously true how language deploys the metafunctions in a discourse. As language itself can represent the reality and manage relationships, therefore, text producers can have a great influence on shaping consumer attitudes towards conceptualizing a word, a phrase, a sentence, or even a paragraph in one product. In the discourse of organic products promotion, two main functions are being performed. First, about the experiential metafunction, different words used and approach to present the text can shape the consumers’ view of buying. Here, the poetic pattern and storytelling-liked framing can demonstrate a pleasurable sensation. Second, about the interpersonal metafunction, the sound linking of firm and customer greatly amplifies the close relationship among seller and buyer, enhancing the credibility of organic production and taste, as well as creating a pseudo familiarity. These are all the functions the meaning, relationships and connection the role of language can perform throughout a series of textual analysis.
In my site of investigation, the public library, written discourse is prominently observed. When compared to the discourse of organic product promotion, the library discourse seems to have a more complex situation. As the frequent communication channel between library administration party and library users is highly relied on text materials like signs, notice, user guides and leaflets, they can hardly utilize the usage of speech exchange across social actors as what advertising producer for organic food can do. For the further research of my site investigation in library, despite the limitation to carry out any corpus analysis, transcriptions and recordings of interviews as the ways the writers conduct databases in the article, I will look deeper into the textual analysis approach and examine the patterning of language adopted among the library materials.
“But it’s all true” is a thought-provoking article, which consists of rich understandings towards the development of a marketing discourse by applying various analytical methodologies. Inside, it covers the findings of a one-year research project, investigating the discourse of organic food promotion in Britain during 2006. The research project combines corpus analysis, textual analysis, interviews and focus group discussion to look into the latest trend of marketing communication and promotional strategies found in market for organic foods.
In this research, there are three datasets collected for analysis. First, a 500,000 and 250,000- word machine-readable corpus is collected for analyzing frequent words and collocations of organic food and non-organic food promotion respectively. Texts used in product labels, packaging, newsletters, advertisements, reports, press releases are all the materials to be discussed. Second, transcriptions of interviews with sixteen stakeholders responsible for the communicative strategies for promoting organic foods are included. Third, transcriptions and recordings of focus group, comprising different demographic sources, are also coded for discussing product labels and promotional leaflets.
The project pinpoints the evaluation of how entrepreneurial sectors gain the unprecedented boom in organic business. Ideally, the best investigation site would closely be related to a commercial setting. The research team picks up the supermarket as the investigation site to examine how organic movement has adopted the marketing practices of corporate retails. The findings across wordings and presentation skills adopted by product producers mirror the metafunctions in the organic foods discourse.
1. Patterning of Poetic Language
Current packaging of organic food frequently combines similar rhythms of words such as “organic baby new potatoes” and “delicious with chopped mint or chives”. This language tactic seems to impress consumers in a much imagery way. Also, sensational and vague languages are profoundly written in the discourse, particularly for the taste. Words referring to flavor including delicious, mouth-watering, real, succulent, superb are much empty in meaning, in which they are commonly practiced in advertising setting to create a sensational picture to buyers. In addition, analysis has also discovered a trend that there is a proliferation of pre- and post-modifiers to formulate a verb on the description.
2. Excessive use of Personal Pronouns
An apparently casual, dialogic and interactive style is usually applied in the organic product promotion. You-view benefits are highly indicated, by the word form appearance of you, across many organic corpuses than non-organic ones. As mentioned in the article, the word form of you is the 27th most frequent word. Whenever retailers emphasize the need of you, as for consumers, a close relationship between producers and buyers can be built up. Obviously, high degree of personal pronoun over formal addressees (You and We not Farm producers), and familiarity over formal lexis (Mums not Mothers) are preferred by consumers ourselves.
3. Divergent way of Unfolding Message
Apart from word choices, the theme and rheme is also deviated from the original meaning. Suppose the marketing efforts in related fields shall be focused on the positive environmental, health, and social effects the organic products can bring to the customers. Also, contributions including environmental protection, fair trade, community-based production and ethical employment practices are also reasonable messages the products can advertise. The real case however turns to be more like a storytelling description by merely touching the necessity of taste instead of any commitment towards the environment and society.
4. Equivocal Claims of Language
Outside the obligatory data of ingredients, nutrients, product origin and expiry date, the retailers frequently deploy the tactics of vague quantifiers (many people, more people) and modal hedges (could be, tend to) in the discourse of organic food promotion, which easily mislead the consumers to believe the untrue details.
Despite the fact that the textual analysis in this research successfully mirrors a different marketing discourse has been created by organic product producers as for a latest communicative strategy in marketing promotion, the methodology can be further improved in order to achieve a more comprehensive discussion. For example, there is seemingly a limitation and shortcoming that number of respondents in interview groups is insufficient. With only sixteen stakeholders in interview and eight people in focus groups, it is difficult to collect rich insights into questions. Also, inadequate respondents may lead a dishonest response. For example, a writer of corporate promotional material may uphold the point that customers are not simply purchasing a product but at the same time buying a nice feeling influenced by the packaging.
It is obviously true how language deploys the metafunctions in a discourse. As language itself can represent the reality and manage relationships, therefore, text producers can have a great influence on shaping consumer attitudes towards conceptualizing a word, a phrase, a sentence, or even a paragraph in one product. In the discourse of organic products promotion, two main functions are being performed. First, about the experiential metafunction, different words used and approach to present the text can shape the consumers’ view of buying. Here, the poetic pattern and storytelling-liked framing can demonstrate a pleasurable sensation. Second, about the interpersonal metafunction, the sound linking of firm and customer greatly amplifies the close relationship among seller and buyer, enhancing the credibility of organic production and taste, as well as creating a pseudo familiarity. These are all the functions the meaning, relationships and connection the role of language can perform throughout a series of textual analysis.
In my site of investigation, the public library, written discourse is prominently observed. When compared to the discourse of organic product promotion, the library discourse seems to have a more complex situation. As the frequent communication channel between library administration party and library users is highly relied on text materials like signs, notice, user guides and leaflets, they can hardly utilize the usage of speech exchange across social actors as what advertising producer for organic food can do. For the further research of my site investigation in library, despite the limitation to carry out any corpus analysis, transcriptions and recordings of interviews as the ways the writers conduct databases in the article, I will look deeper into the textual analysis approach and examine the patterning of language adopted among the library materials.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Investigation #2 Site Survey: Actions and Practices
In my investigation site, the public library serves as a ground of cross-cultural communication. Different social situations allow different social actions among people. Of course, to perform the social actions, there are different social actors involved. From the upper hierarchical level, we have the librarian to be responsible for administrative works or patrol. Lower down, we accommodate different library users, e.g. Philippine and Indonesian domestic maids using free internet service, F.5and F.7 students revising for public examinations, kids and parents in children’s library, elderly in newspaper and periodical section etc. Down below this level, we also have the security guides to check the safety in library. And finally in the lowest level, we have the cleaning staff.
Normally, these people are performing different social actions with other people at the same time. However, they are also called as performing an action even they are acting out alone. This kind of action is particularly obvious to be observed in library because the quiet environment does not allow too much verbal exchange and people-in-action. Therefore, social actors will perform person-in-action on their own. For example, the “Searching book process” is one important social action performed by the actors from library users with the consequent social practices I found in the site.
To find a book, they will follow these steps:
1. Select which category they would like to borrow, books, media resources, electronic reference or children’s collection
2. Select one of the search options as title, author, subject, series, search terms
3. Click “Submit”
4. Read the brief records list –title, author, date
5. Find the available libraries
6. Note the call number, status (closed stack/on shelf)and location(adult lending library)
Usually, the actions of searching a book arise out of library users’ past experiences of using the catalogue and practicing books lending process. They do not largely act out of specific or conscious purpose. For example, they would not particularly testing themselves whether they have the knowledge to look into how the search engine works; rather, they know and do the action naturally in the course of this social interactions. They also normally have completely forgotten that when they acquired the knowledge of searching a book since they got more familiar with computer usage.
To enhance the series of actions easier and make the actions more different on library users, there are several discursive tools available. Under the first type, the “Technical tools”, we need the machine of a computer. Then we need the people, the library users who want to search a book, to perform. Next, the electronic text intangibly appeared in library catalogue requires users’ visual ability to read. Under the second type, the “Symbolic tools”, we need users’ knowledge of reading the instruction. We also need a network system, i.e. the search engine, to facilitate the steps running efficiently. Finally, the social identity labels are also important in order to tell readers which actions library itself and you, as library user, are involving.
Normally, these people are performing different social actions with other people at the same time. However, they are also called as performing an action even they are acting out alone. This kind of action is particularly obvious to be observed in library because the quiet environment does not allow too much verbal exchange and people-in-action. Therefore, social actors will perform person-in-action on their own. For example, the “Searching book process” is one important social action performed by the actors from library users with the consequent social practices I found in the site.
To find a book, they will follow these steps:
1. Select which category they would like to borrow, books, media resources, electronic reference or children’s collection
2. Select one of the search options as title, author, subject, series, search terms
3. Click “Submit”
4. Read the brief records list –title, author, date
5. Find the available libraries
6. Note the call number, status (closed stack/on shelf)and location(adult lending library)
Usually, the actions of searching a book arise out of library users’ past experiences of using the catalogue and practicing books lending process. They do not largely act out of specific or conscious purpose. For example, they would not particularly testing themselves whether they have the knowledge to look into how the search engine works; rather, they know and do the action naturally in the course of this social interactions. They also normally have completely forgotten that when they acquired the knowledge of searching a book since they got more familiar with computer usage.
To enhance the series of actions easier and make the actions more different on library users, there are several discursive tools available. Under the first type, the “Technical tools”, we need the machine of a computer. Then we need the people, the library users who want to search a book, to perform. Next, the electronic text intangibly appeared in library catalogue requires users’ visual ability to read. Under the second type, the “Symbolic tools”, we need users’ knowledge of reading the instruction. We also need a network system, i.e. the search engine, to facilitate the steps running efficiently. Finally, the social identity labels are also important in order to tell readers which actions library itself and you, as library user, are involving.
Investigation #3 Analyzing a Speech Event
A: Borrow or renew?
B: Borrow.
A: Library card or ID Card?
B: ID card
A: Please put it here (Signal B to insert ID Card to the card reader. Wait for seconds. Signal B to remove it)
A: (Verify the data collected in ID Card) All right. Check the returning date.
In my investigation site, the dialogue matters the library book checking-out. For instance, we know that A is the librarian responsible for check out books and B is the library user. We also know the communication process is taken place in circulation counter rather than self check-in counter because it involves face-to-face contact between library staff and user. The structure of this speech event, which we could call “borrowing library books”, can be outlined as below. There are four speech acts within one speech situation occurred in circulation counter.
Speech situation: Conversation in circulation counter
Speech event: Borrowing library books
Speech act: Asking if the library user borrows or renews books
Speech act: Confirming if the library user borrows books by library card or ID card
Speech act: Signal the user to insert and remove ID card from the card reader
Speech act: Notice the borrowing registration is completed
Besides the above three levels of rules of speaking, we can also use Hyme’s SPEAKING model to produce further description of this speech event. Under setting, the event takes place in circulation counter at unspecified time. Under participants we would note that one librarian and one library user are performed. Under ends, the purpose of the spoken text is to fix the book borrowing procedure for that user. Under act sequence we might list at least four things the librarian would do. Under key we would figure out the tone is rather serious and formal. Under instrumentalities, the use of channel is direct face-to-face verbal contact. Under norms of interaction, the librarian is supposed to help the user either borrow or return books. And the user is supposed to bring along with the books, either for borrowing returning, to the circulation counter. Under the genre, we understand it is the library service.
The genre of registration for borrowing books in most cases occurs together with the formal key in workplace, particularly for service providers. Of course we cannot banish other possible services to be asked. The genre would be called unmarked whereas registration for borrowing tissues or cell phone would be called marked as their existences would be quite unexpected. In contrary, the speaker’s meaning of “Borrow or renew?” literally depends on knowledge of context when the user is holding books at the counter. Therefore, we understand the behavior is “borrowing books”.
B: Borrow.
A: Library card or ID Card?
B: ID card
A: Please put it here (Signal B to insert ID Card to the card reader. Wait for seconds. Signal B to remove it)
A: (Verify the data collected in ID Card) All right. Check the returning date.
In my investigation site, the dialogue matters the library book checking-out. For instance, we know that A is the librarian responsible for check out books and B is the library user. We also know the communication process is taken place in circulation counter rather than self check-in counter because it involves face-to-face contact between library staff and user. The structure of this speech event, which we could call “borrowing library books”, can be outlined as below. There are four speech acts within one speech situation occurred in circulation counter.
Speech situation: Conversation in circulation counter
Speech event: Borrowing library books
Speech act: Asking if the library user borrows or renews books
Speech act: Confirming if the library user borrows books by library card or ID card
Speech act: Signal the user to insert and remove ID card from the card reader
Speech act: Notice the borrowing registration is completed
Besides the above three levels of rules of speaking, we can also use Hyme’s SPEAKING model to produce further description of this speech event. Under setting, the event takes place in circulation counter at unspecified time. Under participants we would note that one librarian and one library user are performed. Under ends, the purpose of the spoken text is to fix the book borrowing procedure for that user. Under act sequence we might list at least four things the librarian would do. Under key we would figure out the tone is rather serious and formal. Under instrumentalities, the use of channel is direct face-to-face verbal contact. Under norms of interaction, the librarian is supposed to help the user either borrow or return books. And the user is supposed to bring along with the books, either for borrowing returning, to the circulation counter. Under the genre, we understand it is the library service.
The genre of registration for borrowing books in most cases occurs together with the formal key in workplace, particularly for service providers. Of course we cannot banish other possible services to be asked. The genre would be called unmarked whereas registration for borrowing tissues or cell phone would be called marked as their existences would be quite unexpected. In contrary, the speaker’s meaning of “Borrow or renew?” literally depends on knowledge of context when the user is holding books at the counter. Therefore, we understand the behavior is “borrowing books”.
Investigation #5 Analyzing a Text
In my site of investigation, the public library, written discourse is prominently observed. The frequent communication channel between library administration party and library users is highly relied on text materials like signs, notice, user guides and leaflets. Since written texts are made up of words, sentences and paragraphs, their combination brings insightful meanings corresponding to different context. However, to fully understand the meanings they bring are highly depended on the process and all of the participants the users can identify. Thus, I will here analyze the written discourse existed in library by applying different principle and methods of textual analysis. For this purpose, I will present the instruction printed in a leaflet about “How to reserve library materials through the Internet” as example.
There are 3 broad metafunctions of the language used in the instruction leaflet.
1. Experiential Metafunction
The text implicates the included participants as library users from youths, adults and disabled, for whom have the ability to see and read the Chinese/English instructions. The participants can also claim the identity of readers who have registered for using the library Email Notification Service. The text excludes the participants from visually impaired users. However, Braille display units are provided for them.
2. Interpersonal Metafunction
The writer indicates a logical relationship between library party and library users by mentioning 9 times of reference pronoun “You” and “Your” within 200 words. It might be the reason that effective communication process must be taken in two-way. Therefore, the writer wants to clearly demonstrate who the reader i.e. you, are in this text.
3. Textual Metafunction
To enhance the thematic development, the writer composes the text in a neutral tone without any sensational or emotional words. The content is expressed in an objective way to avoid prejudicial opinion. Besides, there is a high degree of certitude and authority by repeating the modal verb of “will” to achieve a convincing text message. Next, writer emphasizes entreaty of comment adjuncts by noticing “Please enter, Please refer, Please update”.
To strengthen the lexical cohesion, writer includes frequent tendency of action verb such as “Access the home page… Select a library material type…Enter your library card number…Click submit request…Choose your pick up location…” in phrases so as to enhance the readability among different age groups readers. Lastly, to make different lines in the instruction text ‘stick together’, the leaflet’s writer uses the cohesive device i.e. the sequential connector of 1, 2, 3…11, 12 to logically highlight the order. Therefore, library users can easily follow the instruction of reserving library materials through the Internet step-by-step.
There are 3 broad metafunctions of the language used in the instruction leaflet.
1. Experiential Metafunction
The text implicates the included participants as library users from youths, adults and disabled, for whom have the ability to see and read the Chinese/English instructions. The participants can also claim the identity of readers who have registered for using the library Email Notification Service. The text excludes the participants from visually impaired users. However, Braille display units are provided for them.
2. Interpersonal Metafunction
The writer indicates a logical relationship between library party and library users by mentioning 9 times of reference pronoun “You” and “Your” within 200 words. It might be the reason that effective communication process must be taken in two-way. Therefore, the writer wants to clearly demonstrate who the reader i.e. you, are in this text.
3. Textual Metafunction
To enhance the thematic development, the writer composes the text in a neutral tone without any sensational or emotional words. The content is expressed in an objective way to avoid prejudicial opinion. Besides, there is a high degree of certitude and authority by repeating the modal verb of “will” to achieve a convincing text message. Next, writer emphasizes entreaty of comment adjuncts by noticing “Please enter, Please refer, Please update”.
To strengthen the lexical cohesion, writer includes frequent tendency of action verb such as “Access the home page… Select a library material type…Enter your library card number…Click submit request…Choose your pick up location…” in phrases so as to enhance the readability among different age groups readers. Lastly, to make different lines in the instruction text ‘stick together’, the leaflet’s writer uses the cohesive device i.e. the sequential connector of 1, 2, 3…11, 12 to logically highlight the order. Therefore, library users can easily follow the instruction of reserving library materials through the Internet step-by-step.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
