11

Discourse analysis
◈

There’s two types of favors, the big favor and the small favor. You can measure the size
of the favor by the pause that a person takes after they ask you to “Do me a favor.”
Small favor – small pause. “Can you do me a favor, hand me that pencil.” No pause at
all. Big favors are, “Could you do me a favor … ” Eight seconds go by. “Yeah? What?”
“ … well.” The longer it takes them to get to it, the bigger the pain it’s going to be.
Humans are the only species that do favors. Animals don’t do favors. A lizard
doesn’t go up to a cockroach and say, “Could you do me a favor and hold still, I’d like
to eat you alive.” That’s a big favor even with no pause.
Seinfeld (1993)

398
In the study of language, some of the most interesting observations are made, not in
terms of the components of language, but in terms of the way language is used, even
how pauses are used, as in Jerry Seinfeld’s commentary. We have already considered
some of the features of language in use when we discussed pragmatics in Chapter 10.
We were, in effect, asking how it is that language-users successfully interpret what
other language-users intend to convey. When we carry this investigation further and
ask how we make sense of what we read, how we can recognize well-constructed texts
as opposed to those that are jumbled or incoherent, how we understand speakers who
communicate more than they say, and how we successfully take part in that complex
activity called conversation, we are undertaking what is known as discourse analysis.

399
 Discourse
The word discourse is usually defined as “language beyond the sentence” and so the
analysis of discourse is typically concerned with the study of language in texts and
conversation. In many of the preceding chapters, when we were concentrating on linguistic
description, we were concerned with the accurate representation of the forms and
structures. However, as language-users, we are capable of more than simply recognizing
correct versus incorrect forms and structures. We can cope with fragments in newspaper
headlines such as Trains collide, two die, and know that what happened in the first part was
the cause of what happened in the second part. We can also make sense of notices like No
shoes, no service, on shop windows in summer, understanding that a conditional relation
exists between the two parts (“If you are wearing no shoes, you will receive no service”). We
have the ability to create complex discourse interpretations of fragmentary linguistic
messages.

400
 Interpreting discourse
We can even cope with texts, written in English, which we couldn’t produce ourselves and
which appear to break a lot of the rules of the English language. Yet we can build an
interpretation. The following example, provided by Eric Nelson, is from an essay by a
student learning English and contains ungrammatical forms and misspellings, yet it can be
understood.

My Town

My natal was in a small town, very close to Riyadh capital of Saudi Arabia. The distant
between my town and Riyadh 7 miles exactly. The name of this Almasani that means in
English Factories. It takes this name from the peopl’s carrer. In my childhood I remmeber
the people live. It was very simple. Most the people was farmer.

This example may serve to illustrate a simple point about the way we react to language that
contains ungrammatical forms. Rather than simply rejecting the text as ungrammatical, we
try to make sense of it. That is, we attempt to arrive at a reasonable interpretation of what
the writer intended to convey. (Most people say they understand the “My Town” text quite
easily.)
It is this effort to interpret (or to be interpreted), and how we accomplish it, that are
the key elements investigated in the study of discourse. To arrive at an interpretation, and
to make our messages interpretable, we certainly rely on what we know about linguistic
form and structure. But, as language-users, we have more knowledge than that.

401
 Cohesion
We know, for example, that texts must have a certain structure that depends on factors
quite different from those required in the structure of a single sentence. Some of those
factors are described in terms of cohesion, or the formal ties and connections that exist
within texts. There are several cohesive ties in this text.

My father once bought a Lincoln convertible. He did it by saving every penny he could.
That car would be worth a fortune nowadays. However, he sold it to help pay for my
college education. Sometimes I think I’d rather have the convertible.

We can identify connections here in the use of words to maintain reference to the same
people and things throughout. There are also connections created by terms that share a
common element of meaning, such as “money” and “time.” The verb tenses in the first four
sentences are in the past, creating a connection between those events, in contrast to the
present tense of the final sentence marking a change in time and focus. These cohesive ties
are listed in Table 11.1.

Table 11.1
People My father – He – he – he; My – my – I – I

Things A Lincoln convertible – That car – it – the convertible

Money bought – saving every penny – worth a fortune – sold – pay

Time once – nowadays – sometimes

Tenses past (bought) – past (did) – past (could) – past (sold) – present
(think)

Analysis of these cohesive ties gives us some insight into how writers structure what
they want to say. However, by itself, cohesion is not sufficient to enable us to make sense of
what we read. It is quite easy to create a text that has a lot of cohesive ties, but is difficult to
interpret. Note that the following text has these connections in Lincoln – the car, red – that
color, her –she and letters – a letter.

402
 My father bought a Lincoln convertible. The car driven by the police was red. That color
doesn’t suit her. She consists of three letters. However, a letter isn’t as fast as a telephone
call.

It becomes clear from this type of example that the “connectedness” we experience in our
interpretation of normal texts is not simply based on connections between words. There
must be another factor that helps us distinguish connected texts that make sense from those
that do not. This factor is usually described as “coherence.”

403
 Coherence
The key to the concept of coherence (“everything fitting together well”) is not something
that exists in the words or structures of discourse, like cohesion, but something that exists
in people. It is people who “make sense” of what they read and hear. They try to arrive at
an interpretation that is in line with their experience of the way the world is. You may have
tried quite hard to make the last example fit some situation that accommodated all the
details (involving a red car, a woman and a letter) into a single coherent interpretation. In
doing so, you would necessarily be involved in a process of bringing other information to
the text. This process is not restricted to trying to understand “odd” texts. It seems to be
involved in our interpretation of all discourse.
For example, you pick up a newspaper and see this headline: Woman robs bank with
sandwich. As you try to build a coherent interpretation, you probably focus on the sandwich
part because there is something odd about this situation. Is she just carrying a sandwich, or
is she eating the sandwich (taking occasional bites), or is she acting as if the sandwich is a
weapon (concealed in a bag perhaps)? Deciding which interpretation is appropriate cannot
be accomplished based on only the words in the headline. We need to bring information
from our experience to create a plausible situation. If you decided on the “pretend gun in
bag” situation, then your coherence-creating mind would appear to be in good working
order.
We also depend on coherence in coping with everyday conversation. We are
continually taking part in conversational interactions where a great deal of what is meant or
communicated cannot actually be found in what is said. In this brief interaction (from
Widdowson, 1978), there are no cohesive ties connecting the three utterances, so we must
be using some other means to make sense of it. One way to understand what is going on is
to consider the three parts of the interaction in terms of speech acts (introduced in Chapter
10). These are listed on the right, providing a way of analyzing the interaction by
identifying what makes it coherent for the participants.

HER: That’s the telephone. (She makes a request of him to perform action)

HIM: I’m in the bath. (He states reason why he cannot comply with request)

HER: OK. (She accepts reason)

404
 If this is a reasonable analysis of what took place in the brief interaction, then it is
clear that language-users must have a lot of knowledge of how conversation works that is
not simply knowledge of words and sentences, but must involve familiarity with a lot of
other types of structures and their typical functions.

405
 Conversation analysis
In simple terms, English conversation can be described as an activity in which, for the most
part, two or more people take turns at speaking. Typically, only one person speaks at a time
and there tends to be an avoidance of silence between speaking turns. (This is not true in all
situations or societies.) If more than one participant tries to talk at the same time, one of
them usually stops, as in the following example, where A stops until B has finished.

A: Didn’t you [know wh-

B: [But he must’ve been there by two

A: Yes but you knew where he was going

(A small square bracket [ is conventionally used to indicate a place where simultaneous or

overlapping speech occurs.)
For the most part, participants wait until one speaker indicates that he or she has
finished, usually by signaling a completion point. Speakers can mark their turns as
complete in a number of ways: by asking a question, for example, or by pausing at the end
of a completed syntactic structure like a phrase or sentence. Other participants can indicate
that they want to take the speaking turn, also in a number of ways. They can start to make
short sounds, usually repeated, while the speaker is talking, and often use body shifts or
facial expressions to signal that they have something to say. (For more on conversation, see
Task C, on page 168.)

406
 Turn-Taking
There are different expectations of conversational style and different strategies of
participation in conversation, which may result in slightly different conventions of turn-
taking. One strategy, which may be overused by “long-winded” speakers or those who are
used to “holding the floor,” is designed to avoid having normal completion points occur.
We all use this strategy to some extent, usually in situations where we have to work out
what we are trying to say while actually saying it.
If the normal expectation is that completion points are marked by the end of a
sentence and a pause, then one way to “keep the turn” is to avoid having those two markers
occur together. That is, don’t pause at the end of sentences; make your sentences run on by
using connectors like and, and then, so, but; place your pauses at points where the message
is clearly incomplete; and preferably “fill” the pause with a hesitation marker such as er, em,
uh, ah.

407
 Pauses and Filled Pauses
In the following example, note how the pauses (marked by …) are placed before and after
verbs rather than at the end of sentences, making it difficult to get a clear sense of what this
person is saying until we hear the part after each pause.

A: that’s their favorite restaurant because they … enjoy French food and when they were
… in France they couldn’t believe it that … you know that they had … that they had had
better meals back home

In the next example, speaker X produces filled pauses (with em, er, you know) after having
almost lost the turn at his first brief hesitation.

X: well that film really was … [wasn’t what he was good at

Y: [when di-

X: I mean his other … em his later films were much more … er really more in the romantic
style and that was more what what he was … you know … em best at doing

Y: so when did he make that one

408
 Adjacency Pairs
That last example would seem to suggest that conversation is a problematic activity where
speakers have to pay close attention to what is going on. That is not normally the case
because a great deal of conversational interaction follows some fairly well established
patterns. When someone says Hi or Hello, we usually respond with a similar greeting. This
type of almost automatic sequence is called an adjacency pair, which consists of a first part
and a second part, as found in greetings, question–answer (Q~A) sequences, thanking and
leave-taking.

First part Second part

YOU: Good mornin’. ME: Good mornin’.

YOU: Where’s Mary? ME: She’s at work already.

YOU: Thanks for your help yesterday. ME: Oh, you’re welcome.

YOU: Okay, talk to you later. ME: Bye.

These examples illustrate the basic pattern, but not all first parts are immediately
followed by second parts. For example, one question may not receive its answer until after
another question–answer sequence. (See Task E, on page 169, for more.)

409
 Insertion Sequences
In the following example, the sequence Q2~A2 comes between the first question (Q1) and
its answer (A1). This is called an insertion sequence, that is, an adjacency pair that comes
between the first and second parts of another pair.

YOU: Do you want some milk? (= Q1)

ME: Is it soy milk? (= Q2)

YOU: Of course. (= A2)

ME: Okay, thanks. (= A1)

In some situations, a complex structure can emerge from the effect of insertion
sequences. This is often the case in “service encounters,” as in our next example. Notice
how it is only in the middle of this interaction (Q3~A3) that we have an adjacency pair
together, while insertion sequences delay the occurrence of second parts for each of the
other first parts.

BUD: Can I order pizza to go? (= Q1)

DAN : What kind would you like? (= Q2)

BUD : Do you have any special deals? (= Q3)

DAN: Well, you can get two veggie supremes for the price of one. (= A3)

BUD : Okay, I’d like that deal. (= A2)

DAN : Sure thing. We’ll have that ready for you in no time. (= A1)

We are not normally aware of most of these aspects of conversational structure, but
speakers sometimes draw attention to the need for a second part once a first part has been
uttered. In the following interaction, originally analyzed by Sacks (1972: 341), a mother
immediately notices the absence of a spoken return greeting by her daughter and draws
attention to the social expectation involved.

WOMAN: Hi, Annie.

410
MOTHER: Annie, don’t you hear someone say hello to you?

WOMAN: Oh, that’s okay, she smiled hello.

MOTHER: You know you’re supposed to greet someone, don’t you?

ANNIE: [Hangs head] Hello.

The expectations we all have that certain patterns of turn-taking will occur in
conversation are connected to a more general aspect of socially situated interaction, that it
will be “co-operative.” This observation is actually a principle of conversation.

411
 The Co-operative Principle
An underlying assumption in most conversational exchanges is that the participants are co-
operating with each other. This principle, plus four elements, or “maxims,” were first
described by the philosopher Paul Grice (1975: 45), and are often referred to as the
“Gricean maxims,” as presented in Table 11.2.

Table 11.2
The Co-operative Principle: Make your conversational contribution such as is required,
at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange
in which you are engaged.

The Quantity maxim: Make your contribution as informative as is required, but not
more, or less, than is required.

The Quality maxim: Do not say that which you believe to be false or for which you lack
adequate evidence.

The Relation maxim: Be relevant.

The Manner maxim: Be clear, brief and orderly.

In simple terms, we expect our conversational partners to make succinct, honest,

relevant and clear contributions to the interaction and to signal to us in some way if these
maxims are not being followed. It is certainly true that, on occasion, we can experience
conversational exchanges in which the co-operative principle may not seem to be in
operation. However, this general description of the normal expectations we have in
conversation helps to explain a number of regular features in our talk. For example, during
their lunch break, one woman asks another how she likes the sandwich she is eating and
receives the following answer.

Oh, a sandwich is a sandwich.

In logical terms, this reply appears to have no communicative value since it states
something obvious and hence would appear to be a tautology. Repeating a phrase that adds
nothing would hardly count as an appropriate answer to a question. However, if the
woman is being co-operative and adhering to the Quantity maxim about being “as

412
informative as is required,” then the listener must assume that her friend is communicating
something. Given the opportunity to evaluate the sandwich, her friend has responded
without an explicit evaluation, thereby implying that she has no opinion, good or bad, to
express. That is, her friend has communicated that the sandwich is not worth talking about.
(See Task D, on page 169, for more.)

413
 Hedges
We can use certain types of expressions, called hedges, to show that we are concerned about
following the maxims while being co-operative speakers. Hedges can be defined as words or
phrases used to indicate that we are not really sure that what we are saying is sufficiently
correct or complete. We can use sort of or kind of as hedges on the accuracy of our
statements, as in descriptions such as His hair was kind of long or The book cover is sort of
yellow. These are examples of hedges on the Quality maxim. Other examples would include
the following expressions that people sometimes use as they begin a conversational
contribution.

As far as I know …
Correct me if I’m wrong, but …

I’m not absolutely sure, but …

We also take care to indicate that what we report is something we think or feel (not know),
is possible (not certain), and may (not must) happen. Hence the difference between saying
Jackson is guilty and I think it’s possible that Jackson may be guilty. In the first version, people
will assume you have very good evidence for the statement.

414
 Implicatures
When we try to analyze how hedges work, we usually talk about speakers implying
something that is not said. Similarly, in considering what the woman meant by a sandwich
is a sandwich, we decided that she was implying that the sandwich was not worth talking
about. With the co-operative principle and the maxims as guides, we can start to work out
how people actually decide that someone is “implying” something in conversation.
Consider the following example.

CAROL: Are you coming to the party tonight?

LARA: I’ve got an exam tomorrow.

On the face of it, Lara’s statement is not an answer to Carol’s question. Lara doesn’t say Yes
or No. Yet Carol will interpret the statement as meaning “No” or “Probably not.” How can
we account for this ability to grasp one meaning from a sentence that, in a literal sense,
means something else? It seems to depend on the assumption that Lara is being relevant
(Relation) and informative (Quantity). Given that Lara’s original answer contains relevant
information, Carol can work out that “exam tomorrow” involves “study tonight,” and
“study tonight” precludes “party tonight.” Thus, Lara’s answer is not just a statement about
tomorrow’s activities, it contains an implicature (an additional conveyed meaning)
concerning tonight’s activities.

415
 Background Knowledge
It is noticeable that, in order to analyze the conversational implicature involved in Lara’s
statement, we had to describe some background knowledge (about exams, studying and
partying) that must be shared by the conversational participants. Investigating how we use
our background knowledge to arrive at interpretations of what we hear and read is a critical
part of doing discourse analysis.
The processes involved in using background knowledge can be illustrated in the
following exercise (from Sanford and Garrod, 1981). Begin with these sentences:

John was on his way to school last Friday.

He was really worried about the math lesson.

Most readers report that they think John is probably a schoolboy. Since this piece of
information is not directly stated in the text, it must be an inference. Other inferences, for
different readers, are that John is walking or that he is on a bus. These inferences are clearly
derived from our conventional knowledge, in our culture, about “going to school,” and no
reader has ever suggested that John is swimming or on a boat, though both are physically
possible interpretations.
An interesting aspect of the reported inferences is that readers can quickly abandon
them if they do not fit in with some subsequent information.

Last week he had been unable to control the class.

On encountering this sentence, most readers decide that John must be a teacher and that he
is not very happy. Many report that he is probably driving a car to school.

It was unfair of the math teacher to leave him in charge.

Suddenly, John reverts to his schoolboy status, and the inference that he is a teacher is
quickly abandoned. The final sentence of the text contains a surprise.

After all, it is not a normal part of a janitor’s duties.

This type of text and manner of presentation, one sentence at a time, is rather artificial, of
course. Yet the exercise does provide us with some insight into the ways in which we

416
“build” interpretations of what we read by using more information than is presented in the
words on the page. We actually create what the text is about, based on our expectations of
what normally happens. To describe this phenomenon, researchers often use the concept of
a “schema” or a “script.”

417
 Schemas and Scripts
A schema is a general term for a conventional knowledge structure that exists in memory.
We were using our conventional knowledge of what a school classroom is like, or a
“classroom schema,” as we tried to make sense of the previous example. We have many
schemas (or schemata) that are used in the interpretation of what we experience and what
we hear or read about. If you hear someone describe what happened during a visit to a
supermarket, you don’t have to be told what is in a supermarket. You already have a
“supermarket schema” (food displayed on shelves, arranged in aisles, shopping carts and
baskets, check-out counter and so on).
Similar in many ways to a schema is a script. A script is essentially a dynamic schema.
That is, instead of the set of typical fixed features in a schema, a script has a series of
conventional actions that take place. You have a script for “Going to the dentist” and
another script for “Going to the movies.” We all have versions of an “Eating in a
restaurant” script, which we can activate to make sense of this text.

Trying not to be out of the office for long, Suzy went into the nearest place, sat down and
ordered an avocado sandwich. It was quite crowded, but the service was fast, so she left a
good tip. Back in the office, things were not going well.

On the basis of our restaurant script, we would be able to say a number of things about the
scene and events briefly described in this short text. Although the text doesn’t have this
information, we would assume that Suzy opened a door to get into the restaurant, that
there were tables there, that she ate the sandwich, then she paid for it and so on. The fact
that information of this type can turn up in people’s attempts to remember the text is
further evidence of the existence of scripts. It is also a good indication of the fact that our
understanding of what we read doesn’t come directly from what words and sentences are on
the page, but the interpretations we create, in our minds, of what we read.
Indeed, information is sometimes omitted from instructions on the assumption that
everybody knows the script. This instruction is from a bottle of cough syrup.

Fill measure cup to line and repeat every 2 to 3 hours.

No, you’ve not just to keep filling the measure cup every 2 to 3 hours. Nor have you to rub
the cough syrup on your neck or in your hair. You are expected to know the script and

418
drink the stuff from the measure cup every 2 or 3 hours.
Clearly, our understanding of what we read is not only based on what we see on the
page (language structures), but also on other things that we have in mind (knowledge
structures) as we go about making sense of discourse.

419