Ptdn group5

HONG DUC UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

ASSIGNMENT
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

USING BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF
DISCOURSE CONTENT

Group 5:

Lê Thị Vi Linh
Hà Thanh Hiền
Nguyễn Thị Thúy
Nguyễn Mai Linh
Trần Văn Thắng

Class: K23B – English Language

THANH HOA - 2023
List of participating members


No
1.

Full name
Hà Thanh Hiền

2.

Trần Văn Thắng

3.

Nguyễn Mai Linh

4.

Nguyễn Thị Thúy

5.

Lê Thị Vi Linh

Participation content
Learn the part 1 introduction and part 2
computing communicative funtion of using
background knowledge in the interpretation
of discourse.
Learn the part 2 computing communicative
funtion and negotiating.
Learn the part 3 using background knowledge
about default elements and frames.
Learn the part 3 using background knowledge
about scripts and scenarios.
Learn the part 3 using background knowledge
about schemata and summarize the entire
topic content.

1. Introduction
It should be apparent by now that the interpretation of discourse is based
on a number of things. The most important, probably, is the addressee's effort to arrive
at the addressor's intended meaning in producing a message. In addition, there is the
principle of analogy, local interpretation and general features of context and inferences,
the regularities of discourse structure and the organisation of information structure.
These are the aspects of discourse which the reader can make use of in his
reading of a particular discourse fragment. But we believe there is much more to that.
For example, when someone says: "Have you got the time?", we normally interpret its
purpose as an inquiry about what the time is; or "Washington" will be interpreted as a
place name or the name of a person rather than other things the mind can imagine. All
this is part of what we may call socio-cultural knowledge.
Background knowledge is crucial in discourse analysis because it helps fill in
gaps, infer implicit meanings, and make connections between different elements of the
discourse. It allows readers or analysts to go beyond the literal interpretation and
understand the deeper layers of meaning embedded in the text.
Background knowledge is essential not only for the readers but also for
researchers analyzing the text. Researchers need to bring their own knowledge and
understanding of relevant literary, cultural, historical, or social contexts to interpret the
discourse accurately. This helps uncover the layers of meaning, explore the author's
intentions, and understand the broader implications of the discourse within the book.
Brown and Yule (1983) suggest that there are three aspects of the process of
interpreting a speaker/writer's intended meaning in producing discourse:
● Computing the communicative function (taking the message)

1


● Using socio-cultural knowledge (background)
● Determining the inferences to be made.

2. Computing communicative function
Speakers convey both social (interactional) and propositional (transactional)
meanings when they produce language in a particular context. Thus, it becomes clear
that the hearer or addressee will try to compute these two types of meaning.
Social (interactional) meanings refer to the way speakers use language to
establish and maintain social relationships, express emotions, convey politeness, or
engage in small talk. These aspects of discourse focus on the interpersonal aspects of
communication and the social functions of language.
For example, in a conversation, speakers may engage in greetings, express
gratitude, show empathy, or engage in humor or banter to build rapport and establish a
friendly atmosphere.
Propositional (transactional) meanings, on the other hand, refer to the content
or information being conveyed through language. This aspect of discourse emphasizes
the exchange of factual information, conveying instructions, sharing ideas, or discussing
specific topics.
For example, speakers may provide explanations, give directions, ask questions,
present arguments, or negotiate agreements during a conversation or discussion.
Both social and propositional meanings are important in discourse analysis as
they contribute to the overall understanding and interpretation of communication. By
examining both aspects, researchers can gain insights into the participants' intentions,
social dynamics, and the underlying messages or information being conveyed.

2


For instance, in everyday conversations, "how are you" is commonly used as
a greeting, particularly in English-speaking cultures. While it may seem like a
question about someone's well-being, it often functions more as a social ritual or a
formulaic greeting rather than a genuine inquiry into someone's health.
This phrase serves an interactional or social function. It helps establish

rapport, demonstrate politeness, and signal social norms of courtesy. When someone
says "how are you" as a greeting, the expected response is typically a reciprocal
greeting, such as "I'm good, thanks. How about you?" or a similar positive
acknowledgement.
Analyzing it further, we can identify certain features that distinguish it as a
greeting rather than a serious inquiry. The phrase is often uttered in a casual and quick
manner, without expecting a detailed response. It is a conventionalized utterance that
does not necessarily require a genuine answer about one's health.
In discourse analysis, examining the use of "how are you" as a greeting rather
than a serious inquiry allows us to understand the social and interactional functions of
language. It demonstrates how language is used not only for conveying propositional
meanings but also for establishing and maintaining social relationships, showing
politeness, and adhering to cultural norms of communication.
* It is sometimes argued that there exist rules of interpretation which relate what is said
to what is done and on the basis of some social rules that language is read as coherent
or incoherent.
Coherence is obvious in the following example, even though no formal cohesive links
are identified (Widdowson 1979, quoted in Brown and Yule).
A. Can you go to Edinburgh tomorrow?

3


B. B.E.A pilots are on strike.
The example demonstrates the concept of coherence in discourse analysis,
where the interpretation and understanding of the conversation rely on the shared
knowledge and context between the speakers. Even though no formal cohesive links are
explicitly identified, the coherence of the conversation can be inferred based on the
background knowledge and the assumptions made by the participants.
In this example, Speaker A asks Speaker B, "Can you go to Edinburgh

tomorrow?" Speaker B's response is, "B.E.A pilots are on strike." The coherence of the
conversation depends on the shared understanding and assumptions between the
speakers.
If Speaker B intends to convey the meaning that they cannot go to Edinburgh,
the coherence is established through the shared knowledge that the pilots' strike would
result in the unavailability of flights. This interpretation relies on the background
knowledge about the impact of a strike on airline operations.
Overall, this example highlights the importance of coherence in discourse
analysis, where the interpretation and understanding of a conversation depend on the
participants' ability to draw upon their background knowledge and make connections
based on shared assumptions and context.
* Computing communicative function refers to the process of using computational
tools and techniques to analyze and understand the communicative functions of
language in a given text or interaction. It involves examining how language functions to
convey meaning, interact with social structures, and achieve communicative goals.
One way to analyze computing communicative function is through the
concept of top-down and bottom-up processing. Top-down processing refers to the

4


use of higher-level knowledge and context to interpret the meaning of a given utterance
or text. It involves applying prior knowledge and expectations to understand the
intended meaning. On the other hand, bottom-up processing involves analyzing the
linguistic elements of a text or utterance without relying heavily on context. It focuses
on the structure and form of the language to derive meaning.
To illustrate this concept, let's consider the example of the greeting "How
are you?". In a top-down analysis, we would consider the social and cultural norms
surrounding greetings and understand that "How are you?" is a common greeting in
many English-speaking countries. We interpret it as a polite and routine way of

initiating conversation, rather than a genuine inquiry about the person's well-being. The
communicative function in this case is establishing a friendly interaction and showing
courtesy.
In a bottom-up analysis, we would focus on the linguistic features of the
greeting itself. We might look at the structure of the sentence, the choice of words, and
the intonation. Analyzing it purely based on linguistic features, we might interpret it as
a question about the person's health or well-being. However, by considering the context
and our knowledge of social norms, we can infer the intended communicative function.
Interpretation of discourse is not a simple matter of either bottom-up or topdown moving, but rather an interactive process. The comprehender can move with ease
from one type of processing to another.
*Negotiating meaning refers to the process by which participants in a conversation or
interaction work together to establish shared understanding and interpretation of the
messages being communicated. It involves analyzing how participants negotiate,

5


clarify, and align their interpretations of language and discourse to ensure effective
communication.
Here are some key aspects of negotiating meaning :
a. Clarification and elaboration: Participants may ask questions, seek clarifications, or
provide additional information to ensure that their intended meaning is understood by
others.
For example, someone might say, "Could you please explain what you mean by that?"
or "Let me provide more details about my previous statement."
b. Repetition and paraphrasing: Participants may repeat or rephrase their statements
to reinforce or clarify their intended meaning. This helps ensure that their message is
understood correctly.
For instance, someone might say, "To clarify, what I meant was..." or "In other words,
what I'm trying to say is..."

c. Contextual cues and shared knowledge: Participants may rely on contextual cues,
shared knowledge, or background information to negotiate meaning. They may refer to
previous conversations or use references to common experiences or cultural references
to enhance understanding.
For example, someone might say, "As we discussed earlier..." or "You know how in
that movie..."
d. Non-verbal communication: Non-verbal cues, such as facial expressions, gestures,
or intonation, can play a role in negotiating meaning. Participants may use these cues to
convey additional information or to emphasize or clarify their intended meaning.
e. Negotiation of terms and definitions: Participants may engage in discussions or
negotiations to establish common understanding of terms, concepts, or definitions. This

6


can involve providing explanations, offering examples, or referring to authoritative
sources. For example, someone might say, "Let's define what we mean by 'success' in
this context" or "According to this study, 'sustainability' refers to..."
By analyzing the ways in which participants negotiate meaning in discourse,
researchers can gain insights into the processes through which shared understanding is
achieved. It helps uncover the strategies, techniques, and collaborative efforts employed
by participants to ensure effective communication and avoid misunderstandings.
3. Using background knowledge
3.1. Default elements
Default elements can also refer to the background knowledge or prior
assumptions that individuals bring to the table when engaging in analysis. These default
elements are the ideas, concepts, or beliefs that are already known or accepted by the
analyst and serve as the starting point for their analysis.
When using background knowledge as default elements, analysts rely on their
existing understanding of a subject to make sense of new information or to draw

conclusions. These default elements can include theories, frameworks, or concepts that
the analyst has previously learned or encountered in their field of study.
For example, in a political analysis, an analyst may have a default element that
democratic principles and institutions are essential for a functioning and fair society.
This default element is based on their background knowledge of political theory and the
prevailing norms in democratic societies. When analyzing a specific political system,
the analyst would likely start with this default element, examining how well the system
adheres to democratic principles and assessing its effectiveness in promoting citizen
participation and accountability.

7


However, it is important to be aware of the potential limitations and biases that
default elements based on background knowledge can introduce. Analysts should
critically evaluate their default elements and be open to challenging or expanding their
understanding based on new evidence or alternative perspectives. By doing so, analysts
can avoid confirmation bias and ensure a more comprehensive and objective analysis.
In summary, default elements in analysis discourse when using background
knowledge are the pre-existing ideas, concepts, or beliefs that analysts rely on as a
starting point for their analysis. These default elements can shape the direction and
conclusions of the analysis, but it is important to critically evaluate them to avoid bias
and to allow for a more comprehensive and objective analysis.
3.2. Frames
Frames refer to the underlying structures or patterns that shape how individuals
interpret and understand communication. Frames provide a framework for organizing
and making sense of information, guiding individuals' perceptions, interpretations, and
responses to discourse.
Frames can be thought of as cognitive filters through which individuals process
and understand the meaning and implications of communication. They help individuals

categorize and interpret information, as well as assign meaning and significance to
specific aspects of discourse.
Here are a few examples of frames in discourse analysis:
● Thematic Frames: These frames focus on specific themes or topics within
discourse. For example, a thematic frame in a political discourse could be
centered around issues like healthcare, immigration, or climate change. When

8


analyzing discourse through a thematic frame, researchers examine how these
themes are constructed, represented, and discussed.
● Ideological Frames: Ideological frames reflect individuals' underlying beliefs,
values, and political ideologies. These frames shape how individuals interpret
and evaluate discourse based on their ideological perspectives. For instance, a
conservative frame may prioritize limited government intervention, individual
freedom, and traditional values, while a progressive frame may emphasize social
justice, equality, and the need for systemic change.
● Narrative Frames: Narrative frames involve the storytelling aspect of discourse.
They focus on how events, characters, and plotlines are constructed and
presented in a narrative form. Narrative frames help individuals understand the
overall structure and meaning of a discourse by identifying key storylines,
conflicts, and resolutions.
● Problem-Solution Frames: Problem-solution frames highlight the identification
and resolution of issues within discourse. They involve identifying a problem or
challenge, analyzing its causes and consequences, and proposing or evaluating
potential solutions. These frames help individuals understand how discourse
addresses and frames problems and their proposed solutions.
By analyzing frames in discourse analysis, researchers can gain insights into
how communication is constructed, interpreted, and evaluated by individuals and

communities. Understanding frames helps to uncover the underlying assumptions,
biases, and influences that shape discourse and impact the way it is understood and
responded to.
3.3. Scripts

9


In the context of using background knowledge in the interpretation of discourse,
scripts are representations of highly abstract generic structure potential associated with
events; they delineate the inherent elements of events and their sequences (Schank and
Abelson 1977). A script refers to a written dialogue or conversation that illustrates how
individuals rely on their background knowledge to understand and make meaning of the
discourse. The script serves as a fictional or hypothetical scenario that showcases the
role of background knowledge in interpreting and comprehending communication.
The purpose of the script is to demonstrate how background knowledge, such as
cultural familiarity, subject-specific knowledge, personal experiences, and historical
context, influences the interpretation of discourse. It aims to highlight how individuals
with different backgrounds may understand and interpret the same conversation
differently based on their prior knowledge and experiences.
The script provides a concrete example of how background knowledge acts as a
guiding framework, helping individuals interpret language, understand implicit
meanings, decipher cultural references, and make connections within the discourse. It
emphasizes the importance of considering background knowledge in discourse analysis
to gain a deeper understanding of communication and its underlying complexities.
By presenting a fictional or hypothetical scenario in the form of a script, it
allows for a more engaging and relatable representation of how background knowledge
influences the interpretation of discourse. It helps illustrate the practical application of
background knowledge in real-life communication situations and highlights its
significance in understanding and analyzing discourse effectively.

Example: Script: A conversation between two friends discussing a recent soccer match.
Friend A: "Did you see that beautiful goal by Ronaldo?"

10


Friend B: "Yeah, he really knows how to bend it like Beckham!"
In this script, background knowledge of soccer and familiarity with famous players like
Ronaldo and Beckham is necessary to fully understand the conversation. Without this
background knowledge, the conversation may not make sense or the references may be
misinterpreted.
This example illustrates how scripts can demonstrate the role of background
knowledge in interpreting discourse. By presenting hypothetical or real-life
conversations, scripts provide a tangible representation of how our prior knowledge and
experiences influence our understanding and interpretation of language.
3.4. Scenarios
In the context of using background knowledge in the interpretation of discourse,
scenarios were developed to refer to characteristic properties of situations that were not
necessarily represented in propositional form (Stanford and Garrod 1981).
Scenarios provide a context or setting where individuals can apply their
background knowledge to make sense of the discourse. They allow for a practical
demonstration of how prior knowledge and experiences shape the interpretation of
language and facilitate comprehension.
Example: Scenario : Picture a group of friends discussing a recent movie that is set in a
specific historical period.
Friend A: "I really enjoyed the attention to detail in the costumes and set design."
Friend B: "Yes, it transported us back to the Victorian era so convincingly."
In this scenario, background knowledge of historical periods, such as the
Victorian era, is crucial for understanding the conversation. The scenario provides a

11


context where individuals can draw upon their knowledge of history and cultural
references to interpret the discourse.
This scenario demonstrates how hypothetical or fictional situations can be used
to illustrate the role of background knowledge in understanding and interpreting
discourse. By presenting specific contexts, scenarios provide a practical framework for
individuals to apply their prior knowledge and experiences, highlighting the
significance of background knowledge in communication comprehension.
3.5. Schemata
In discourse analysis, schemata refer to the mental frameworks or structures that
individuals use to organize and interpret information during the process of
understanding and producing discourse. These schemata are based on an individual's
background knowledge, experiences, and cultural context. When using background
knowledge in discourse analysis, several types of schemata are commonly employed:
● Cultural schema: Cultural schemata are the shared beliefs, values, norms, and
knowledge that individuals within a particular culture possess. These schemata
help to interpret and make sense of cultural references, symbols, and practices in
discourse.
● Linguistic schema: Linguistic schemata encompass knowledge of language
structures, grammar, vocabulary, and discourse patterns. These schemata aid in
comprehending and producing coherent and meaningful discourse.
● Social schema: Social schemata involve knowledge of social roles, relationships,
and interactions. They help individuals understand the social dynamics within a
discourse context, including power dynamics, politeness strategies, and social

12

norms. Social schemata assist in interpreting the intentions and meanings behind
utterances and actions.
● Discourse genre schema: Discourse genre schemata pertain to knowledge of
different types of discourse genres, such as narratives, interviews, debates, or
academic papers. These schemata guide individuals in recognizing and
employing appropriate discourse features, organizational patterns, and language
choices specific to each genre.
● Topic schema: Topic schemata relate to an individual's knowledge and
understanding of a particular subject or topic. These schemata influence
comprehension and interpretation by providing background information,
context, and expectations related to the topic being discussed in the discourse.
By utilizing these various schemata, individuals can draw upon their background
knowledge to make predictions, infer meaning, and create coherent
interpretations of discourse. The activation and application of schemata
contribute to effective communication and comprehension in discourse analysis.
Summary
There are three aspects of the process of interpreting: computing the
communicative function, using socio-cultural knowledge and determining the inferences
to be made, apart from the features of context, which influence the way we comprehend
discourse.
Computing communicative functions may take place top-down or bottom-up.
Using background knowledge on socio-cultural knowledge is based on analogy with
what we have experienced or known in the past. However, this knowledge has to be
organised in some ways that are readily available to the discourse comprehension.

13


Though the terms used are different and stem from different schools of ideals, they are
essentially the same. Default elements are those that are set in advance. A frame is a

structure with slots to be filled in. Scripts can be best used to describe event sequences.
A scenario is just like that of a film, where people can expect what roles are playing out.
A scheme is a kind of structure which needs to be filled in with elements.

14