Introduction to Discourse Analysis

Contents:
• Introduction to Discourse
• What is Discourse?
• Paradigms in Linguistics
• What is Discourse Analysis?
• Historical view of discourse analysis
• Cohesion & Coherence
• Types of Wriiten and Spoken discourses
• Functions of Spoken and Written discourses
• Linguistic characteristics of spoken and written discourse
• Text and Discourse
• Scope of Discourse Analysis
What is Discourse?

• “A conversation, especially of a formal nature; formal and orderly

expression of ideas in speech or writing; also such expression in the form
of a sermon, treatise, etc.; a piece or unit of connected speech or writing
(Middle English: discours, from Latin: act of running about).”

(Longman Dictionary of the English Language, 1984)

Two paradigms in linguistics
 Two paradigms in linguistics viz formalist paradigm and functionalist paradigm make
different background assumptions about the goals of a linguistic theory, the methods for
studying language, and the nature of data and empirical evidence.
 These differences in paradigm also influence definitions of discourse.
1. A definition as derived from formalist assumptions is that discourse is 'language
above the sentence or above the clause' (Stubbs 1983:1).
2. Another definition derived from the functionalist paradigm views discourse as
'language use.' This definition observes the relationship the discourse has with the
context.
3. A third definition of discourse attempts to bridge the formalist-functionalist
dichotomy. The relationship between form (structure) and function is an important
issue in discourse.
Discourse Analysis:
Overview:
• The study of naturally occurring connected sentences, spoken or written, is one of
the most promising and rapidly developing areas of modern linguistics.
• Traditional linguistics has concentrated on sentence-centred analysis. Now,
linguists are much more concerned with the way language is 'used' than what its
components are.
• One may ask how it is that language-users interpret what other language-users
intend to convey. When is carried this investigation further and asked how it is
that people, as language-users, make sense of what they read in texts, understand
what speakers mean despite what they say, recognize connected as opposed to
jumbled or incoherent discourse, and successfully take part in that complex
activity called conversation, then one is undertaking what is known as discourse
analysis.
 Historical view of discourse analysis:
• Discourse analysis deals language in use: written text of all kinds and spoken data.
• It received attention in different disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics,
semiotics, anthropology, psychology and sociology.
• At a time when linguistics was largely concerned with the analysis of single sentences, Zelling
Harris published a paper with the title 'Discourse analysis' in 1952. Harris was interested in
the distribution of linguistic elements in extended texts, and the links between the text and its
social situation.
• Also important in the early years was the emergence of semiotics and the French structuralist
approach to the study of narrative. In the 1960s, Dell Hymes provided a sociological
perspective with the study of speech in its social setting.
• The linguistic philosophers such as Austin (1962), Searle (1969) and Grice (1975) were also
influential in the study of language as social action, reflected in speech-act theory and the
formulation of conversational maxims, alongside the emergence of pragmatics which is the
study of meaning in context.
What is Discourse Analysis?
• The first linguist to refer to discourse analysis was Zellig Harris. In 1952, he
investigated the connectedness of sentences, naming his study 'discourse
analysis.'
• Harris claimed explicitly that discourse is the next level in a hierarchy of
morphemes, clauses and sentences.
• He viewed discourse analysis procedurally as a formal methodology, derived
from structural methods of linguistic analysis: such a methodology could break a
text down into relationships (such as equivalence, substitution) among its lower-
level constituents.
• Structural was so central to Harris's view of discourse that he also argued that
what opposes discourse to a random sequence of sentences is precisely the fact
that it has structure: a pattern by which segments of the discourse occur (and
recur) relative to each other.
Discourse Analysis:

• Michael Stubbs says,

“Any study which is not dealing with (a) single sentences, (b)
contrived by the linguist, (c) out of context, may be called
discourse analysis.”
(Stubbs 1983:131).
Discourse Analysis:

• 'Knowledge of a language is more than knowledge of individual

sentences.'
(Leech 2008:76)
• The true meaning of a sentence can't be assigned by its only linguistic
construction but it largely depends on reference (meaning in relation
to exterior world), sense (meaning in relation to linguistic system)
and force (meaning in relation to situational context).
• Let's take an example: I love you. Clearly the assigned meaning is
different in different situations if the speaker is one's lover or beloved
as opposed to one's parent or child.
Discourse Analysis:

• As Chomsky states,
'To understand a sentence we must know more than the
analysis of this sentence on each linguistic level. We must also
know the reference and meaning of the morphemes or words
of which it is composed; naturally, grammar cannot be
expected to be of much help here.'
(Chomsky 2002:103-04).
Widdowson’s Criticism on the definition of Discourse
Analysis:
• Widdowson, also criticizes the well familiar definition of discourse
analysis that discourse is the study of language patterns above the
sentence.
• He states that if discourse analysis is defined as the study of language
patterns above the sentence, this would seem to imply that discourse is
sentence writ large: quantitatively different but qualitatively the same
phenomenon. It would follow, too, of course, that you cannot have
discourse below the sentence. (Widdowson, 2004: 3)
Continue...

• In other words, the discourse information is crucial to a

complete theory of language.
• Smith and Kurthen also argue that 'the existence of arbitrary
and language-specific syntactic and referential options for
conveying a proposition requires a level of linguistic
competence beyond sentential syntax and semantics'
(Smith and Kurthen 2007:455).
Cohesion and Coherence:
• Cohesion:
 A piece of discourse must have a certain structure which depends on factors quite
different from those required in the structure of a single sentence.
 The way sentences link up with each other to form discourse is cohesion.
 Cohesion makes the items hang together.
 Cohesion comes about as a result of the combination of both lexical and
grammatical structures.
 It should be considered in terms of the two basic dimensions of linguistic
organization – paradigmatic and syntagmatic. In this way it is meaningful to
extend the principles of linguistic description beyond the limit of the sentence.
Continue...

• Analysis of cohesive links within a discourse gives one some

insight into how writers structure what they want to say. Many
devices are used to create cohesion such as recurrence, use of
pro-forms, connectors, thematic arrangements etc.
Coherence:

• Connections between other words and sentences, which is the

field of cohesion, would not be sufficient to enable one to make
sense of what we read and hear.
• It is quite easy to create a highly cohesive piece of discourse
which has a lot of connections between the sentences, but
which remain difficult to interpret. It is people who make sense
of what they read and hear.
• They try to arrive at on interpretation which is in line with their
experience of the way the world is. So,
• the 'connectedness' which people experience in their
interpretation of what is being heard or read is coherence.
Continue...

• Cohesion is connectivity of the surface, whereas coherence

deals with connectivity of underlying content.
• Coherence, in other words, is related to the mutual accessibility
and relevance of concepts and relations that underlie the surface
level.
• A reader or listener would have to create meaningful
connections which are not always expressed by the words and
sentences, taking into account the surface phenomena.
Some types of spoken discourse
• It is not an easy job to predict all types of spoken discourse because a person
encounters different types of speech even within a single day. Conversations vary
in their settings and degree of structuredness. Some types of speech are as
follows:

 Telephone calls (Business and private)

 Classroom (Classes, lectures, tutorials, seminars)

 Interviews (Jobs, journalistic, in official settings)

 Service encounters (Hotels, ticket offices, shops, etc.)

Some types of spoken discourse, Continue...

 Rituals (Prayers, sermons, weddings)

 Monologues (Strangers, relatives, friends)
 Language-in-action (Talk accompanying doing: fixing,
cooking, demonstrating, assembling, etc.)
 Organizing and directing people (Work, home, in the street)
• One should look closely at the forms and patterns of different
types of spoken discourse. Different roles and settings generate
different forms and structures, and discourse analysts try to
observe in natural data just what patterns occur in particular
settings.
Some types of written discourse:

• Everyday people come into contact with written texts and

interpret their meanings so as to get what they intend. We can
never think of a literate man who never writes or tries to write
something. Like spoken discourse, written discourse is also of
many kinds as:
• Newspaper
• Poem
• Letter to/from friend
• Business letter
• Instruction leaflet
Some types of written discourse, Continue...:

• Literary publication
• Public notice
• Academic article
• Small ads

• It is certain that most people will read more of the text types
mentioned above than actually write them. Both spoken and
written discourse perform different functions in society, use
different forms, and exhibit different linguistic characteristics.
Functions of written spoken discourse:

• Spoken and written discourse make somewhat different

demands related to functions that they perform.

Writing has the advantage of relative permanence, which allows

for record-keeping (storage function) in a form independent of
the memories of those who keep the records.
Written discourse can communicate over a great distance (by
letters, newspapers, etc.), and to large numbers simultaneously
(by publications of all kinds).
Functions of written spoken discourse:

Written discourse is not only permanent but also visible.

An important consequence of this is that the writer may look
over what he has already written, pause between each word
with no fear of his interlocutor interrupting him. He may take
his time in choosing a particular word, even looking it up in the
dictionary if necessary.
Written language makes possible the creation of literary works
of art in ways comparable with the creation of paintings or
sculpture.
Functions of written spoken discourse:

 The invention of the tape-recorder, the telephone, the radio and

television have helped to overcome the limitations of the spoken
language regarding time, distance and numbers.
 Speech, of course, retains functions which writing will never be able
to fulfil, such as quick, direct communication with immediate
feedback from the addressee.
 The speaker must monitor what it is that he has just said, and
determine whether it matches his intentions, while he is uttering his
current phrase and monitoring that, and simultaneously planning his
next utterance and fitting that into the overall pattern of what he wants
to say and monitoring, moreover, not only his own performance but its
reception by his hearer.
Functions of written spoken discourse:

• But we can not deny the fact that speech is an everyday activity
for almost everyone, whereas written discourse may not be. Nor
can we state that spoken and written discourse are not
complementary in function and one is more important than the
other.
Linguistic characteristics of spoken and written discourse:

• There are different linguistic characteristics of both of these

discourses. Just as the differences of the function and forms of
spoken and written discourse overlap one another in the same
way the characteristics of these two discourses, as will be
discussed, have actually some overlap between the two.
1: Normal non-fluency:
• Spoken discourse is generally characterized by normal non-fluency. Normal
non-fluency refers to unintended repetitions (e.g. I. I …), fillers (e.g. um, er),
false starts, grammatical blends and unfinished sentences.
• One finds false start 'where a sentence is broken off midway as a result of a
change of mind'
(Leech, Deuchar and Hoogenraad 1993:139);
• For example, 'You should – well tackle it yourself.' When one begins in one
way and ends in another, one tends to blend; for example in 'Do you know
where is my office?' here the sentence begins as an indirect question but ends
as a direct question.
• In spoken discourse, people face the phenomena of hesitation that lead to non-
fluency. Spoken discourse contains many incomplete sentences, often simply
sequences of phrases. Written discourse, on the other hand, does not,
naturally, face such phenomena and as a result it appears more fluent.
2: Monitoring and interaction features:

• These features are found in spoken discourse because of its use in dialogue,
with a physically present addressee.
• Monitoring features 'indicate the speaker's awareness of the addressee's
presence and reactions.'
(Leech, Deuchar and Hoogenraad 1993:139)
• In monitoring, one uses such adverbs and adverbials as 'well', 'I think', 'I
mean', 'you know', 'you see', 'sort of'.
• Interaction features call the active participation of the addressee. Interaction
features include second person pronoun, questions, imperatives etc.
• Written discourse if it is not in dialogue form, generally, lacks these features.
3: Simplicity of structure:
• Simplicity and complexity of structures are marked by the
subordination of clauses and noun and adjectival phrases.
How many elements the clauses or phrases contain or how
many levels of subordination there are tend to mark simplicity
or complexity.
• In written discourse, rather heavily pre-modified noun phrases
are quite common – it is rare in spoken discourse.
• Nesting and embedding of clauses is much more found in
written discourse.
• Spoken discourse is less complex than written because of the
short time available to produce and process it.
• Written discourse, on the other hand, can be re-drafted and re-
read.
4: Repetitiveness:

• Since spoken discourse is less permanent, it requires more

repetition than written discourse.
• In spoken discourse, the addressee can not easily refer back to
what has gone before, so important information has to be
repeated. This can be noticed, for example, in normal
conversation.
• The category of mode with reference to spoken and written
discourse, as has been discussed, has peculiar linguistic
characteristics, but there can be some overlap in these
characteristics, depending on what they are used for, and in
what situation.
5: Inexplicitness:

• In speech, people have both the auditory and visual media

available, as speech is generally used in face-to-face situations.
• In spoken discourse, one encounters inexplicitness because of
many facts such as shared knowledge of the participants, which
makes explicitness unnecessary; extra information is conveyed
by 'body language' (e.g. gestures, facial expressions); the
immediate and intended physical environment can be referred
to (e.g. by pointing to people or objects); and one has advantage
of feedback from the hearer so as to make intended message
clear. Pronouns such as this, that, it, are used frequently in
speech, which leads to inexplicitness.
Continue...

• In written discourse, a writer does not have the advantage of the

addressee's presence, so he must be much more explicit in his
process.
• Avoiding the above mentioned inexplicitness, written discourse
also acquires explicitness with the help of clear sentence
boundaries but in speech sentences may be unfinished, because
the knowledge of the addressee makes completion unnecessary.
Discourse Versus Text

• Discourse analysis focuses on the structure of naturally

occuring spoken language, as found in such ‘discourses’ as
conversations, interviews, commentaries, and speeches.
• Text analysis focuses on the structure of written language, as
found in such ‘texts’ an essays, notices, road signs, and
chapters.
Discourse Versus Text

• Geaoffery Leeche and Michael Short argue that;

“Discourse is linguistic communication seen as a transaction

between speaker and hearer, as an interpersonal activity
whose form is determined by its social purpose. Text is
linguistic communication (either spoken or written) seen
simply as a message coded in its auditory or visual medium.”
Scope of discourse analysis:
• Discourse analysis has grown into a wide-ranging and heterogeneous
discipline which finds its unity in the description of language above as
well as below the sentence and an interest in the contexts and cultural
influences which affect language in use.
• It is not only concerned with the description and analysis of spoken
interaction but it deals with written discourse.
• People daily encounter hundreds of written and printed words:
newspapers, recipes, stories, letters, comics, notices, instructions, leaflets
pushed through the door, and so on.
• They usually expect them to be coherent, meaningful communications in
which the words and/or sentences are linked to one another in a fashion
that corresponds to conventional formulae, just they we do with speech.
Scope of discourse analysis:

• Discourse analysis has received ever-increasing attention from different

disciplines.
• It includes taxonomy, speech act theory, interactional sociolinguistics,
ethnographies of communication, pragmatics, conversation analysis, and
variationist discourse analysis (one could also add critical discourse
analysis, narrative analysis, discursive psychology, and more) and ranges
from philosophy to linguistics to semiotics to sociology to anthropology,
and so on.
• Such a wide range of its fields indicates that the notion of discourse is itself
quite broad. This may also suggest why discourse analysis has emerged as a
special interest in the past few decades—the fact that diverse fields find the
study of discourse useful indicates larger cultural and epistemological
shifts.
THANK YOU