DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Course Code:9067
Study Guide

Department of English
Faculty of Social Sciences & Humanities
ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY
 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
BS ENGLISH
(4-Year Program)

Course Code: 9067 Units: 1–9

Department of English
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities
Allama Iqbal Open University
Islamabad

i
 (All Rights Are Reserved with the Publisher)

First Edition...................................... 2024

Quantity............................................ 1000

Price................................................. Rs.

Typeset by ........................................ M. Hameed Zahid

Printing Incharge .............................. Dr. Sarmad Iqbal

Printer .............................................. AIOU-Printing Press, Sector H-8, Islamabad

Publisher .......................................... Allama Iqbal Open University, H-8, Islamabad

ii
 COURSE TEAM

Chairman: Dr. Malik Ajmal Gulzar

Course Development Coordinator: Dr. Rashida Imran

Writer: Dr. Rashida Imran

Reviewer: Prof. Dr. Sarwet Rasul

Layout / Typeset by: M. Hameed Zahid

Editor: Humera Ejaz

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page #
Foreword .................................................................................................. v

Introduction to the Course ....................................................................... vi

Course Objectives .................................................................................... viii

Acknowledgements .................................................................................. ix

Unit–1: Introduction to Discourse Analysis ............................................ 1

Unit–2: Origin and Development of Discourse Analysis ........................ 15

Unit–3: Discourse Analysis and Grammar .............................................. 27

Unit–4: Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis ........................................... 41

Unit–5: Conversational Analysis ............................................................ 57

Unit–6: Critical Discourse Analysis ........................................................ 71

Unit–7: Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis ......................................... 85

Unit–8: Discourse Genres ....................................................................... 99

Unit–9: Research in Discourse ................................................................ 115

iv
 FOREWORD

The BS English study guides aim to include all possible queries that students may
have and gently stimulate their intellect to probe into further questions. The courses
are intended for professional development of the students in various disciplines of
linguistics and literature using versatile methods adopted by course writers, while
writing the units. The topics and ideas presented in each unit are clear and relevant.
Owing, to the same reason, the text is comprehensive and accessible to students
having no prior knowledge of linguistics and literature.

The BS English study guides are a powerful tool even for BS English tutors
teaching in various regions, focusing upon a uniform scheme of studies for all the
courses. Also, these courses will help tutors by providing adequate teaching
material for independent teaching. All study guides strictly follow the standardized
nine-unit sub-division of the course content for optimum understanding. The short
introduction at the beginning provides an overview of the units followed by
achievable learning objectives. The study guides also define difficult terms in the
text and guide the students to accessible learning. The units are finally summed up
in summary points and the assessment questions not only guide students, but also
help to revise the content developed upon previously formed concepts. Moreover,
they provide links and a list of the suggested readings for further inquiry.

In the end, I am happy to extend my gratitude to the course team chairman, course
development coordinator, unit writers, reviewers, editors and typesetters for the
development of the course. Any suggestions for improvement in the programme/
courses will be fondly welcomed by the Department of English.

Prof Dr Nasir Mehmood

Vice Chancellor

v
 INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE
Dear Students,

This study guide on the course of ‘Discourse Analysis (9067)’ is designed to

introduce the highly diverse and constantly expanding field of discourse analysis.
The field of discourse analysis is fully established as an academic discipline and a
growing body of scholarly works is, further, strengthening theoretical perspectives,
research approaches and methodologies associated with it. Discourse analysis is
interdisciplinary in nature and is grounded in fields like philosophy, sociology,
anthropology, psychology, linguistics and gender studies. Social scientists,
scholars, academia and researchers from these interrelated fields are incorporating
discourse analysis both in theory and practice to address their discipline -specific
issues. Discourse analysis is an influential field in investigating the relationships
between language, power and ideology in written and spoken texts of varied nature.

The course familiarizes you with major developments in the field since its inception
in the 1970s. It also focuses on major theoretical perspectives, research paradigms
and methodological designs associated with the field. Exclusive discussion has been
made on the leading approaches of conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis
and feminist critical discourse analysis. The prominent foundational theorists of the
field and the impact of their work on theoretical and methodological practices have
also been highlighted. The notion of ‘discourse’ is critically discussed. Furthermore,
a section is exclusively based on representative discourse genres. Moreover, the latest
trends of critical inquiry and research have also been discussed.
The following is a brief description of unit-wise course contents:
Unit-1: Introduces the most debated term in the field of discourse analysis, discourse,
in greater detail. Multiple definitions with unique descriptive features have
been added to develop a holistic understanding of the term and how it is used
in different contexts. The complexities involved in the interpretation of
discourse have also been highlighted. Furthermore, characteristic features of
written and spoken discourses are critically discussed.

Unit-2: Provides background to the inception and development of the field since
the 1970s. The role of key theorists and major developments in the field of
discourse analysis have also been addressed in this unit. Furthermore,
discourse as a constructer and reflector of social reality has also been
discussed in greater detail.

Unit-3: Examines discourse analysis and grammar and highlights their

interrelatedness and the way these influence and shape each other. Technical
concepts like cohesion and coherence are extensively discussed. Furthermore,
the terms theme and theme are introduced as well as references and their types
to understand how discourse and grammar are interrelated.

vi
Unit-4: Evaluates the interrelationship of pragmatics and discourse analysis. The
study of contextual meaning as a central focus of pragmatics is also discussed.
Furthermore, fundamental theories, concepts and terms required to undertake
pragmatic analysis of discourse have also been considered in detail.

Unit-5: Presents conversation analysis as a key approach to studying social

interactions. Special attention has been paid to naturally occurring talk as
well as institutionalized conversations. Furthermore, the methodology of
CA is rigorously presented. Conversation openings and closing have also
been discussed. Moreover, conversational aspect of turn- taking is also
considered in greater detail.

Unit-6: Explores theoretical perspectives and methodological designs of one of the

most influential research approach namely critical discourse analysis.
CDA’s theorization of discourse has been extensively discussed with
reference to key practitioners. Methodological strengths and limitations of
CDA have also been established in concrete terms.

Unit-7: Discusses theoretical perspectives and methodological designs of one of the

most influential research approach namely feminist critical discourse
analysis. Feminist CDA’s theorization of discourse has been extensively
discussed with its central focus. Methodological strengths and limitations of
feminist CDA have also been established in concrete terms. Furthermore,
the idea of gender performativity is, also, discussed in greater length.

Unit-8: Analyses some key genres of discourse including the discourse of advertising,
the discourse of politics, the discourse of law and literary discourse.
Structuralist, formalist, stylistic and discursive features of these prominent
discourse genres have also been highlighted. Furthermore, their comparative
and contrastive features have been discussed in detail to develop a holistic
understanding.

Unit-9: Highlights latest trends of research in the interdisciplinary field of

discourse analysis. The unit documents some past research studies carried
out in the field to highlight multiplicity of research perspectives and
research issues.

Wish you an intellectually exciting exploration of the course!

Dr. Rashida Imran

Assistant Professor of English
Course Development Coordinator

vii
 COURSE OBJECTIVES

Discourse Analysis is one of the core topics in the academic disciplines of

linguistics and literature at the BS English level. The field of discourse analysis is
highly complex, dynamic and constantly expanding owing to its multidisciplinary
nature. This course is not only an introduction but a kind of survey course to the
emergence, major developments, theories and approaches to discourse analysis.
With this kind of rich content, it is hoped that the course will provide a solid
foundation to the students of the BS English program for enhancing their insight
into the field of discourse analysis. The objectives of the course are to:
1. introduce the jargon of discourse, the multiplicity of its definitions and its
unique descriptive features
2. provide background to the emergence and development of the field with
reference to the key theorists
3. highlight the interrelatedness of discourse analysis and grammar and how
both fields influence one another
4. evaluate the impact of pragmatics on the discourse analysis and their interest
in analysing real language use
5. examine conversation analysis as a key approach to studying social
interactions and the mechanism of turn-taking
6. explore theoretical perspectives and methodological designs of one of the
most influential research approaches namely critical discourse analysis
7. discusses the theoretical tenets and methodology of one of the most influential
research approaches, within the field of gender studies, namely feminist
critical discourse analysis
8. assess some key genres of discourse including the discourse of advertising,
the discourse of politics, the discourse of law and literary discourse.
9. describe the latest trends of research in the interdisciplinary field of discourse
analysis
10. document past research conducted in the field of discourse analysis from
multiple perspectives

viii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

All praise and glory be to Allah (SWT), we have been able to transform a long-
thought concept into the form of a book. A number of people were instrumental in
making it a reality as it would not have been possible without their support,
guidance, and inspiration.

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Prof Dr Nasir
Mahmood, Vice Chancellor, Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad for showing
his trust and confidence in the faculty of the English Department by allowing us the
launch of four-year BS English degree program as per HEC Undergraduate
Education Policy (2023).

I am profoundly grateful to Prof Dr Abdul Aziz Sahir, Dean of the Faculty of Social
Sciences and Humanities at AIOU Islamabad, for his very kind support and
guidelines during the process of developing materials including this course book.

I owe a great debt of gratitude to the members of the Committee-of-Courses (CoC)

of the English Department including Prof Dr Nadeem Haider Bukhari (UoAJK),
Prof Dr Rafique Ahmed Memon (UoSindh), Prof Dr Saiqa Imtiaz (BZU), and Prof
Dr Munazza Yaqub (IIUI) for their suggestions and recommendations.

My heartfelt thanks to the reviewer, Prof Dr Sarwet Rasul, Dean of the Faculty of
Social Sciences, FJWU, whose insightful feedback and relentless encouragement
have been invaluable. Her critical reflections and thoughtful suggestions have
greatly enhanced the quality of this book.

My special thanks to Dr Malik Ajmal Gulzar, Chairman Department of English for

his support during the write-up of this course.

My thanks are also due to Dr Zahid Majeed (Director, APCP) and Ms Humera Ijaz
(Editor, APCP) and the very cooperative staff at PPU, AIOU Islamabad.

Finally, to my readers, thank you for embarking on this journey with me. Your
support and enthusiasm give purpose to my writing. I hope that this book will
resonate with you and provide the insights and inspiration you seek.

ix
The remaining shortcomings in the course are my own and any suggestions for the
improvement of the course would be wholeheartedly welcome and the same will
be incorporated in its subsequent revision.

The remaining shortcomings in the course are my own and any suggestions for the
improvement of the course would be wholeheartedly welcome and the same will
be incorporated in its subsequent revision.

Thank you all for being part of this incredible journey.

Dr Rashida Imran
Assistant Professor of English
Course Development Coordinator

x
Unit–1

INTRODUCTION TO
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Written by: Dr Rashida Imran

Reviewed by: Prof Dr Sarwet Rasul

1
 CONTENTS

Page #
Overview .................................................................................................. 3

Objectives ................................................................................................ 3

1.1 The Pursuit for Meaning .................................................................. 5

1.2 Defining Discourse .......................................................................... 7

1.3 Interpreting Discourse ..................................................................... 9

1.4 Discourse and Construction of Social Reality ................................. 10

1.5 Spoken and Written Discourse ........................................................ 12

Summary Points ....................................................................................... 13

Self-Assessment Questions ...................................................................... 14

2
 OVERVIEW

This is the foremost unit which introduces the most debated term in the field of
discourse analysis, discourse, in greater detail. Multiple definitions with unique
descriptive features have been added to develop a holistic understanding of the term
and its application in various contexts. The complexities involved in the
interpretation of discourse have also been highlighted. Furthermore, characteristic
features of written and spoken discourses are critically discussed.

OBJECTIVES

After reading this unit, you will be able to: -

i. define the term discourse

ii. highlight the significance of the quest for meaning

iii. differentiate between the two basic approaches to the study of discourse

iv. understand the critical importance of discourse interpretation

v. explore the differences between spoken and written discourses

3
Language, as a sign system, is one of the most significant defining features of our
social life since the times immemorial. Language is not merely a means of
communication in the traditional sense of the term but also performs various other
functions. We use language to express our feelings, thoughts and ideas about the
issues which are socially, culturally and politically relevant to our society.
Furthermore, language is used to building, sustaining and strengthening our
interpersonal relationships. Intercultural as well as cross -cultural engagement is
also possible because of language. Hence, it is, purely, the use of language which
has transformed peoples of diverse cultures and socializations into a global
community. However, as mentioned earlier, language is not restricted to
performing communicative functions only and is used to meet different purposes
and perform functions of varied nature. Language, as a social practice, adds
coherence and sense to our existence. Language, thus, is the most integral aspect of
our social life and our livid experiences as all human learning and knowledge has
been materialized in language.

Furthermore, language is not simply restricted to the purpose of ‘saying things’

rather language is used to ‘perform things’ and ‘be things’. Language enables us to
do things and perform various actions, for instance, we use language to greet our
friends, congratulate our batchmates, advise our siblings, request our seniors and
promise our family various things, etc. Similarly, language is used to declare
convocations open and confer degrees in academic settings. Similarly, in courtroom
proceedings, culprits are sentenced via language. These scenarios are not reflective
of the giving and seeking information function of language but of doing things of a
varied nature. Similarly, language enables us to be things. Ours and others' social
identities are dependent on the use of language. We can speak with the authority of
experts or we can talk like the laymen. Our language expresses formal lexical
choices when we are in the company of our elders but we may use highly informal
language when surrounded by our friends. Thus, language enables us to adopt
multiple identities simultaneously as opined by Gee (2011). Language is an
essential element to ‘construct’ us as unique individuals and through the process of
social interaction, we may either ‘reconstruct’ ‘deconstruct’ or ‘negotiate’ our
identities. Therefore, our identity is not ‘absolute’ rather ‘fluid’ but this absolutism
or fluidity of our identity is essentially grounded in the language we use. Therefore,
this is language which determines our identity and influences and shapes our
perceptions about the identities of other individuals. Therefore, it can be concluded
that language not merely performs communicative function but encompasses a
variety of functions of varied nature, from the simplest function of communication
to the most complex one of identity construction.

4
1.1 The Pursuit for Meaning
Semanticists are concerned with the processes involved in encoding and decoding
meaning of words, phrases, sentences and/or utterances ever since human beings
started using language as a sign system. It is generally argued that words do not
have any of their natural or intrinsic meanings and their plausible meanings are
attributed to them by the people during the process of social interaction and with
the passage of time, we may find meaning shift based on the uses of words in unique
contexts. Arbitrariness is the linguistic term used to refer to this unique
characteristic feature of human language which stands for the idea that the meaning
of a linguistic sign is not determined or predicted from its word form nor is word
form deduced from its meaning or function. Therefore, there is no intrinsic
relationship between a signifier and the signified but constructed, hence lies the
possibility of deconstruction of the meaning which is evident from the semantic
change a word undergoes during the process of social interaction over a period of
time. This study of meaning is not a recent scholarly pursuit but ancient
philosophers were concerned with the study of meaning long before linguistics was
established as a field of scientific study of language. This scholarly pursuit of
studying meaning led to the development of two interrelated fields of semantics
and pragmatics which deal with two distinct aspects of meaning. What is meaning
and how is meaning encoded and decoded in language is answered by Thomas
(1995) through a holistic description of meaning:
Meaning is not something that is inherent in the words alone, nor is it
produced by the speaker alone or the hearer alone. Making meaning is a
dynamic process, involving the negotiation of meaning between speaker and
hearer, the context of utterance (physical, social and linguistic), and the
meaning potential of an utterance. Meaning, thus, is produced in interaction.
It is jointly accomplished by both the speaker and the listener, or the writer
and their reader. It involves social, psychological and cognitive factors that
are relevant to the production and interpretation of what a speaker (or writer)
says, and what a hearer (or reader) understands by what is said (22).

This valuable insight from Thomas (1995) leads us to understand the dynamic
nature of meaning as well as the relevant contextual aspects which impact
production and interpretation of meaning. What exactly constitutes meaning in
language depends on several factors which vary according to the context of
language use or discourse genre. For instance, it is often argued that a piece of
literary text has the potential to generate an infinite number of interpretative
meanings, which led to the much- celebrated notion of ‘the death of the author’ and
the infinity of reader responses, Short (1989) discusses the same issue in greater
length and concludes it thus:

5
 It is true that each reader will to some extent interpret a text differently from
others, merely as a consequence of the fact that we are all different from one
another, have had different experiences, and so on. But it should be obvious
that such a subjectivist view of literary understanding runs counter to the
presuppositions of stylistic analysis, whose proponents assume, that our
shared knowledge of the structure of our language and the processes for
interpreting utterances in our community imply a relatively large degree of
common understanding, in spite of differences in individual response. For the
stylistician, the major fact to be explained is that, although we are all different,
we agree to a remarkable extent over the interpretation… the range of
interpretations which have been produced for even the most discussed texts is
remarkably small compared with the theoretically infinite set of ‘possible’
readings. (p. 2–3)

The critical notion of the infinity of meanings is not attributed to literary texts only,
but any genre of discourse can lead to such discussion. Cameron (2001) reflects on
this challenge in much detail, within the context of a critical investigation of Dutch
critical discourse analyst van Dijk which was based on a report, published in the
British popular newspaper The Sun, related to the illegal immigrants, she argues:
A number of things could be said in response to this challenge. First of all, the
‘infinite variety’ argument should not be taken too far, for clearly it is not true
that texts support any reading the analyst might care to produce. As Jenny
Thomas (1995) points out, meaning making involves interaction between the
reader and the text: the text puts some limits on what a reader can do with it. Just
as ‘How are things, Scott?’ could not reasonably be taken by Scott as a proposal
of marriage, so BRITAIN INVADED offers nothing to the analyst who wants to
claim that the Sun reproduces sexism, or homophobia, or an obsession with
football. To anyone familiar with the Sun, these are all quite plausible claims, but
they find no support in this particular piece of discourse. (p. 138)

Thus, Cameron (2001) rejects the infinity hypothesis of reader responses and
concludes that all interpretations are necessarily related to the text closely.
Furthermore, her argument that texts simply do not support any reading an analyst
may produce is grounded in the fact that meaning-making involves interaction
between the reader and the text which is successful only if the analyst is aware of
the structural and stylistic constraints of the text. It also depends on their critical
engagement with the text, their analytic practices as well as contextual sensibility.
This critical approach leads to what Short (1989) hypothesizes that even the most
celebrated texts have a very small range of interpretations as compared to the
theoretical infinity of possible interpretive readings.

6
1.2 Defining Discourse
The term ‘discourse’ is one of the most frequently used and discussed terms within
the broader field of discourse analysis. Leading theorists and practitioners have
investigated its nature and offered different definitions, descriptions and usages
which led to a diversity of defining features of discourse, multiplicity of its
meanings and its constitutive elements. In its broadest sense, the term refers to
written or spoken language encompassing the way language is used coherently in
its context as well as linguistic structures, conventions, practices and strategies used
by the speakers and writers to convey meaning.

There are two fundamental approaches to the definition of discourse. Firstly,

discourse is defined as language ‘above the sentence level’ and secondly, it is
defined as ‘language in use’. The former definition focuses on the structure of
language which makes it cohesive. It investigates how words, phrases and sentences
are combined in different patterns leading to the development of larger texts.
Grammatical analysis of discourse is, often, embedded in this approach. The latter
definition, on the other hand, does not restrict itself to a mere description of
structural features of language and takes into consideration the social aspect of
language and the functions it performs within the context of a particular speech
community. If discourse analysis deals with ‘language above the sentence’, it
means it looks for patterns which are extended and larger than sentences. In this
sense, discourse would stand for a text which is both cohesive and coherent rather
than a mere collection of unconnected sentences which do not make any sense. We
can understand the application of both these approaches in greater detail by
considering the following example used by Cameron (2001).

The baby cried. The mommy picked it up.

You must have instantly realized that this is an instance of discourse rather than
two unconnected sentences. It is interesting to find that it is the use of cohesive
linker ‘it’ which connects both these sentences in a meaningful way and enables us
to reach this conclusion and treat both the sentences as interrelated. Though, ‘it’ is
used in the second sentence but it refers back to the baby mentioned in the first
sentence. You might have, also, quickly identified that it is an instance of anaphoric
reference which refers back to the entity already mentioned in the text. Thus, the
approach which considers discourse as language beyond the sentence level adopts
the structuralist perspective to the study of language and investigates the linguistic
patterns functioning together to creating unity of texture. Now, reconsider the same
instance from the perspective of the second approach to the study of discourse
which is ‘language in use’.

7
Through our shared experiences of the way language is used in our social context,
we can identify the sequence of the events and a narrative at work by understanding
that what happened in the second sentence is actually the effect of the cause
depicted in the first sentence. Moreover, though the text does not explicitly tell that
the mommy was the biological parent of the baby but our worldview and schemata
of motherhood influence us to believe that the mommy was the real mother of the
baby. Moreover, there might be a possibility that the mommy did not belong to the
baby and she picked it up just to console and pacify it, compelled by her maternal
instinct, while the baby’s real mommy was not around. However, our worldview
and sequence of events in the real world will lead us to the former conclusion that
the mommy was the biological parent of the baby. This analysis stands valid when
a news headline such as ‘Rising inflation, low standard of living’ appears in a
national daily, it reveals that what happened before is the cause of what happened
next. It is interesting to note that without any use of cohesive linkers, we are capable
of generating this meaning based on our knowledge of how news discourse
operates. Thus, there must be another factor which plays a key role in understanding
the meaning of two seemingly unconnected phrases. You might have now
understood that much of the interpretation of this discourse is not based on our
conventional knowledge of linguistic forms and their function but rather on the way
language is used in our social and cultural context. Thus, the second approach to
the study of discourse is more inclusive in nature as it focuses on both the linguistic
form as well as function (s) it performs in real-life situations. One of the most
comprehensive definitions of the term is given by Woods (2006) which is clearly
reflective of this approach to the study of discourse:

The relatively recent adoption by linguists of the term ‘discourse’ for the subject
we study when we examine ‘language in use’ – the real language that real people
use in the real world – is at least partly a recognition of the fact that language is
very much more than just the sum of the linguistic elements that compose it.
Discourse is, at the very least, language plus context – by which I mean the context
that we bring with us when we use language; the context that includes our
experience, assumptions and expectations; the context we change (and which is
itself changed) in our relationships with others, as we both construct and negotiate
our way through the social practices of the world we live in (p. x).

Woods (2006) stresses the word ‘real’ as the real language used by real people in
the real context which is further indicative of the idea that discourse embodies not
only the extended use of language but also its socio-cultural context. It may refer
to larger units of language like conversations, interviews, debates, essays, and
narratives, etc. It may also refer to any linguistic or semiotic content produced by
electronic, print or digital media.

8
1.3 Interpreting Discourse
Interpreting discourse is not a very simplified and straightforward activity, rather it
involves critical engagement with the text. As discussed in the previous section, the
interpretation of discourse is largely dependent on how language is used in our
sociocultural contexts. Therefore, the interpretation of discourse is embedded in our
worldview, shared knowledge, livid experiences and cultural schemata to fill in the
gaps and develop meaningful connections which are not explicitly expressed by
phrases and sentences. This is evident from the example shared by Cameron (2011)
which we analyzed while discussing approaches to the definition of discourse.
More or less, the same pattern is involved in our interpretation of a wide range of
discourse genres. Now consider the following instance:
Mother: Are you joining us at the party tonight at your uncle’s place?
Son: I have a test tomorrow.
Mother: Ok

This instance is identical in nature to the instance which we discussed previously.

We do not find any obvious cohesive ties used within this stretch of discourse.
Nevertheless, it is meaningfully connected and coherent. Thus, coherence is
another factor involved in the process of interpretation of the discourse which
enables both the mother and the son to make sense of each other’s utterances. They
decode each other’s responses from the information contained in the sentences
uttered, but there must be something else involved in the interpretation of this
exchange which is the application of the politeness principle. Based on our societal
schemata of appropriate linguistic behaviour, invitations are not flatly refused as
refusal may sound rude and pose a threat to people’s ‘face’. As we can understand
from the exchange that the son’s response is not merely informative but a polite
decline of the invitation. None of this is actually stated in the text itself. This
characteristic feature often leads to much debated notion of authenticity of
meaning. Are the meanings simply stated by the text or invested by the analyst?
Angermuller (2014) elaborates this point thus:

From a discourse analytical point of view, texts, even the most conceptual ones, are
not closed meaning containers… it needs a cognitive agent to solve its interpretive
problems: the reader… as an opaque symbolic materiality, the text is posed between
the individual and the world… texts are not repositories for pure ideas, content or
messages… they need a reader who completes them by adding missing contexts
and thus associating the many anonymous sources and voices of discourse with
definite individuals occupying social positions. (p. 63-64)

9
It is evident from Angermuller’s reflections that such types of exchanges are best
explained through the conventional actions performed by the speakers in such
interactions. Based on the insights derived from the speech act theory, we can
understand the brief conversational exchange in terms of actions performed via
utterances. The first utterance of hers is not simply an informative statement but a
request to him to accompany her to the party. On the other hand, his response is,
actually, a polite refusal and not simply stating the reason why he cannot comply
with the request which may be regarded as an indirect speech act. This seemingly
unconnected exchange becomes meaningful based on the knowledge of how
language is used in the social context. It is, therefore, evident from the given
example that our world view as well as our shared knowledge and experiences of
language use largely influence our interpretation of discourse. This is a common
ground for both discourse analysis and pragmatics as both study language in its
context of use. In addition to the knowledge of how language is used in a real social
context, the interpretation of discourse is largely grounded in the societal schemata
and collective societal consciousness. A schema is a preexisting knowledge
structure in memory which is triggered while analyzing discourse. In the case of
intercultural communication, interpretation may become problematic and lead to
ambiguity because of unawareness of the societal schemata of appropriate linguistic
behaviour as well as real language use in social and cultural contexts.

1.4 Discourse and Construction of Social Reality

The most valuable insight derived from the works of critical theorists is discourse as a
constructer and reflector of social reality. Thus, discourse performs the dualistic
function of construction and reflection of societal philosophies and ideologies. The
discourses produced by various societal institutions are embedded in the collective
consciousness and reproduce social life in all of its intricacies. Discourses produced by
various channels of socialization often reveal societal assumptions and practices related
to the issues of social, cultural and political relevance. Discourses present dominant
beliefs, norms, values, stereotypes and socio-cultural assumptions of a society in all of
their material and abstract manifestations.

Discourse has a constitutive property. Michel Foucault referred to the same

property of discourse when he defined discourse as practices which systematically
form the objects of which they speak. Discourse, thus, enables us to grasp abstract
ideas and notions like globalization, cultural imperialism, capitalism and neo-
colonialism, etc. Without the constitutive property of discourse; such complex
notions would not have been formulated. Within this perspective, Lupton (1992)
defines discourse as ‘a group of ideas or patterned way of thinking which can be
identified in textual and verbal communications and can also be located in wider
social structures’ (p. 145). A critical investigation of various media discourses

10
reveals how reality is socially constructed and is subjective in nature. Similarly,
discourses produced by cultural productions of a particular society, reveal its
generic fabric. Thus, discourse not only constructs but also reflects social reality.
Edward Said’s critical notion of ‘Orient’ and ‘Occident’ is a product of social
reality constituted and reflected through discourse. Said revealed the role of cultural
productions and discursive representations of the West about the Orient.
Construction of the Orient as primitive, irrational and barbaric while the Occident
as civilized, rational and cultured is, essentially, grounded in the discourses
produced and sustained by media, cultural productions and other epistemological
sites. This is further evident through stereotypical representations of different
religious, racial, ethnic and linguistic groups by mainstream electronic and print
media discourses which is highly reflective of the constitutive property of
discourse. Thus, discourse provides invaluable insights into social life, societal
structures and social identities of people.

Discourses produced in spoken and written forms not only shape our social and
cultural practices but are also shaped by them. Furthermore, discourses not only
reflect political, social and cultural ideologies but are also responsible for
producing, sustaining, challenging or deconstructing these ideologies. Therefore,
discourse is said to perform ideational work. Furthermore, discourses are shaped
by other discourses, the ones that have preceded and the ones which might follow.
Reality is said to be ‘discursively constructed’ as people talk about certain things
within the backdrop of certain discourses available to them. Change in people’s
perceptions of a political figure is the finest instance of the discursive construction
of reality. Based on the nature of discourses produced, disseminated and consumed,
a patriot may turn into a traitor and vice versa. This conditioning of people’s psyche
is grounded in ideological discourses constructed by dominant societal institutions
and most prominently media for the ideological effect.

The term discourse is used both in singular as well in plural form. Multiple
discourses may be pervasive about an entity, for instance, child labour. The social
discourse may present child labour as a product of poverty and illiteracy. The legal
discourse about child labour may project it as a criminal offence if the minimum
age limit is not followed while recruiting a worker. The medical discourse may
project child labour as a major obstacle to physical and intellectual growth of a
minor. Similarly, political discourse may emphasize the need to introduce
legislation and social welfare projects to combat its prevalence. These multiple
discourses when produced, perpetuated and consumed may generate a set of ideas,
beliefs and concepts which we, the consumers of discourses, perceive as the
‘reality’ of child labour. This is what the theorists term ‘reality is discursively
constructed and reflected’.

11
1.5 Spoken and Written Discourse
Discourse analysis as a field of critical inquiry is not specifically restricted to either
written or spoken discourse (s). It may investigate language use in any discourse
genre and in any medium. A diverse variety of linguistic texts is analyzed in the
field from various theoretical and methodological perspectives. Discourse analysts
may investigate written discourses of various kinds as well as their semiotic
features. Similarly, discourse analysts may focus on spoken discourse as well as
their prosodic features. Spoken discourses may include naturally occurring talk,
institutionalized conversations, political speeches, talk shows, interviews,
electronic media news and advertisements, cultural products like television plays
and documentaries, etc. On parallel grounds, written discourses may deal with any
kind of socially situated language use in written form including but not limited to
print media products, legal discourse, political discourses, textbooks, scriptures,
literary texts as well written manifestations of a diversified range of discourses.
Irrespective of the theoretical focus of the analysts, they tend to make explicit what
is generally taken for granted and show relevance and impact of discourse on
people’s lives and society at large.

Discourse analysts are interested in investigating language because it is,

undoubtedly, the most significant social practice and an integral element of our
social structure. Our social identities and relations are rooted in the use of language.
However, working with spoken discourse is more challenging in nature as
compared to written discourse but at the same time, it is a rewarding project too. It
is rewarding because spoken discourse is firmly rooted in real language use because
of its non-scripted nature. It is challenging because collecting spoken data involves
additional constraints like seeking informed consent, audio/video recordings of the
conversations and transcribing data into machine readable form. Capturing semiotic
or prosodic data is yet another challenge attributed to spoken data. On the other
hand, written discourse may involve seeking informed consent but is ready for
analysis at the onset of critical inquiry. Furthermore, working with spoken
discourse is a specialized endeavour which requires unique expertise and skills. On
the other hand, we are more trained in investigating written discourses as compared
to spoken ones. This is partly attributed to the fact that we are academically trained
to do so as in close readings of texts of various kinds, however, any talk is hardly
analyzed from this perspective. Spoken and written discourses differ with respect
to their structural and functional conventions which makes working with one type
of discourse a more challenging enterprise as compared to the other. For instance,
regarding grammatical intricacy, written discourse is more structurally complex as
compared to spoken discourse.

Moreover, written discourse is more lexically dense as compared to spoken discourse

which might be fairly simple. Written discourse, also, has a high level of
nominalization and it is considered to be more explicit stylistically as compared to
spoken discourse. Regarding contextualization, speech is more strongly tied to its
context as speakers and listeners rely on some shared assumptions to encode and
12
decode a message. Spoken discourse is, also, more spontaneous and it is marked by
more repetitions, hesitations and redundancy as it is produced in real time and in a real
setting. Written discourse, on the other hand, is carefully planned and more organized.
However, it is more logical to view these differences not as absolute but rather as fluid
with some variations. The selection of spoken or written discourse is largely
determined by the theoretical perspectives and objectives of a research project.

SUMMARY POINTS
i. Language, as a sign system, is one of the most significant defining features of
our social life since the times immemorial.

ii. Language is not purely restricted to the purpose of ‘saying things’ rather
language is used to ‘perform things’ and ‘be things’.

iii. Our identity is not ‘absolute’ rather ‘fluid’ but this absolutism or fluidity of
our identity is essentially grounded in the language we speak or write.

iv. The linguistic term used to refer to this unique characteristic feature of human
language is called arbitrariness which stands for the idea that the meaning of
linguistic signs is not determined or predicted from their word forms nor is
word form deduced from its meaning or function.

v. This preoccupation with the study of meaning led to the development of two
interrelated fields of semantics and pragmatics which deal with different
aspects of meaning.

vi. Cameron (2001) refutes the claim of the infinity of reader responses and
concludes her argument on the grounds that all interpretations are necessarily
related to the text closely.

vii. The term ‘discourse’ is one of the most debated terms in the broader field of
discourse analysis.

viii. Many key theorists and practitioners investigated its nature and presented
different and sometimes radically different definitions, descriptions and
usages which led to a vast array of defining features of discourse, the
multiplicity of its meanings and its constitutive units.

ix. There are two basic approaches to the definition of discourse. Firstly,
discourse is defined as language ‘above the sentence level’ and secondly, it is
defined as ‘language in use’.

13
x. Lupton (1992) defines discourse as ‘a group of ideas or patterned way of
thinking which can be identified in textual and verbal communications and
can also be located in wider social structures’ (p. 145).

xi. Interpreting discourse is not a very simplified and straightforward activity,

rather it involves critical engagement with the text.

xii. In addition to the knowledge of how language is used in a real social context,
the interpretation of discourse is largely grounded in the societal schemata
and collective societal consciousness.

xiii. The most valuable insight derived from the works of critical theorists is
discourse as a constructer and reflector of social reality.

xiv. Discourse has a constitutive property. Michel Foucault referred to the same
property of discourse when he defined discourse as practices which
systematically form the objects of which they speak.

xv. Irrespective of the theoretical focus of the analysts, they tend to make explicit
what is generally taken for granted and show the relevance and impact of
discourse on people’s lives and society at large.

SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

1. How does the study of discourse contribute to our understanding of power

dynamics within social interactions?

2. What are the key differences between written and spoken discourse, and how
do these distinctions impact communication?

3. In what ways does discourse shape and reflect cultural identities? Provide
examples from different societies.

4. How would you describe the processes involved in the interpretation of

discourse?

5. How can discourse analysis be applied in the field of education to improve

classroom communication and foster a more inclusive learning environment?

14
Unit–2

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Written by: Dr Rashida Imran

Reviewed by: Prof Dr Sarwet Rasul

15
 CONTENTS
Page #
Overview .................................................................................................. 17

Objectives ................................................................................................ 17

2.1 Development of the Field ................................................................ 18

2.2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Discourse Analysis ............................... 20

2.3 Discourse Structure of Texts ........................................................... 21

2.4 Cultural Ways of Speaking and Writing .......................................... 22

2.5 Discourse and Performance ............................................................. 23

2.6 Discourse and Intertextuality ........................................................... 23

2.7 Diversity in Discourse Analysis ...................................................... 24

Summary Points ....................................................................................... 25

Self-Assessment Questions ...................................................................... 26

16
 OVERVIEW

This unit provides background to the inception and development of the field in the
1970s. The role of key theorists and major developments in the field of discourse
analysis have also been addressed in this unit. Furthermore, interdisciplinary nature
of the field of discourse analysis has also been discussed in greater detail.

OBJECTIVES

After reading this unit, you will be able to: -

i. define the term discourse with scholarly references

ii. analyze the diversity of the field of discourse analysis

iii. trace the historical development of the field

iv. examine the element of intertextuality

v. critically evaluate discourse from the perspective of performance

17
Discourse analysis is a generic term which refers to a variety of approaches used to
analyze and interpret written and spoken discourses. The field was established and
developed during the 1970s and is, also, labelled as discourse studies. Theoretically,
methodologically and analytically, the field of discourse analysis is highly diverse
and constantly expanding by a growing body of scholarly work. Thus, there is a
considerable variation in the theories and practices of the field. Discourse analysis
is, basically, a qualitative research approach in social sciences and humanities
which is practised in a variety of academic disciplines such as linguistics,
philosophy, anthropology, sociology, psychology, cultural studies, media studies
and gender studies, etc.

2.1 Development of the Field

Discourse analysis analyzes language used in a variety of texts, written and spoken,
as well as the contexts in which it is used, disseminated and consumed. It also
focuses on the worldview, social relations and social identities as constructed and
projected by discourse. The term, discourse analysis, was initially used by Zellig
Harris (1952) who was an influential American linguist and notable for his
discovery of transformational structures in language. He was, primarily, interested
in investigating the structure of language beyond the sentence level. He was,
further, interested in exploring how language features are used to create a variety
of texts and their unique styles. His foremost important observation is:
connected discourse occurs within a particular situation – whether of a person
speaking, or of a conversation, or of someone sitting down occasionally over
the period of months to write a particular kind of book in a particular literary
or scientific tradition. (p. 3)

Harris (1952) was also concerned with exploring ‘the relationship between
linguistic and nonlinguistic behaviour’, which means that how people make sense
of or understand when someone says something in a particular situation. It is a
common observation that people normally do not exactly say what they intend to
mean through their utterances which implies that there may be differences in the
intended and stated meaning of utterances. For instance, if one of your friends
invites you to a party and you respond with an utterance like, ‘I have a test
tomorrow’, your friend will understand that you are not simply being informative
rather you are politely declining the invitation. Harris argues that utterance meaning
is determined by the specific contextual situation and if the context of utterance
changes, it may bring a change in the meaning. Thus, an utterance can be
understood differently in different contexts and by different language users if their
worldview is not identical in nature.

18
 Van Dijk (2008), also, argues that context is a subjective construct which not only
determines the uniqueness of each text but also represents the common worldview
and shared assumptions that language users draw on during their social interaction.
The link between society and discourse is mediated and depends on language users
and how their linguistic practices shape the communicative event in which they are
engaged. Thus, in his words, ‘[i]t is not the social situation that influences (or is
influenced by) discourse, but the way the participants define the situation in which
the discourse occurs’(van Dijk 2008: x). As described earlier, contexts refer to
broader socio-cultural conditions which are constantly modified and evolve.
Furthermore, people’s interactions are grounded in their contextual situations as
language users of a certain speech community. Therefore, if we cannot make sense
of the way language is used in certain cultures then we cannot make sense of their
texts as texts are essentially grounded in their contexts (Martin 2001). Discourse
analysis, then, is interested in ‘what happens when people draw on the knowledge
they have about language . . . to do things in the world’ (Johnstone 2002: 3).

Since the inception and development of the field of discourse analysis, there have
been scholarly differences in the nature of discourse analysis. The researchers in
the field of social sciences may label their work as an enterprise of discourse
analysis but they perceive the term in altogether different ways (Fairclough 2003).
He, further, contrasts what he calls ‘textually oriented discourse analysis’ with
approaches to discourse analysis that have more of a social theoretical orientation.
He does not see these two views as mutually exclusive, however, arguing for an
analysis of discourse that is both linguistic and social in its orientation. Similarly,
Mills (1997) highlights how the term discourse analysis has been subjected to a
variety of usages within its short history. It has shifted from highlighting one aspect
of language use to another.

As discussed in unit 1, discourse analysis not only investigates language beyond

the sentence level but also language in use. This view of discourse analysis explores
how real people use language in real situations. It, further, investigates how people
make sense of the communicative intentions of others, and how people achieve
their communicative goals as well as present themselves to others by participating
in communicative events. It also focuses on intracultural and intercultural
communication by investigating people’s linguistic behaviour.

The early foundations of discourse analysis are grounded in the works of philosophers
like Austin who explored how language is used in the context to achieve social actions
and perform speech acts. The roots of discourse analysis can also be traced back to the
fields of structuralism and semiotics which focused on the formal structure of
languages and examined signs and their meanings in their context respectively. In the

19
late 20th century, scholars like Norman Fairclough, van Dijk, Ruth Wodak and Deborah
Cameron established the foundation for Critical Discourse Analysis focusing on the
relationship between language, power and ideology. They also investigated that social
inequality is reflected and contested in discourse. Furthermore, scholars like Harvey
Sacks established the approach of Conversation Analysis focusing on the mechanism
which governs naturally occurring talk as well as institutionalized conversations. The
contemporary development in the field is Multimodal Discourse Analysis, an approach
to analyze social and digital media multimodal texts integrating language and other
semiotic features such as images, gestures, graphics and sounds, etc. The field has also
expanded to include global and transnational discourses in the analysis to investigate
how language use varies in intercultural or cross- cultural settings. Its methodologies
and theoretical frameworks continue to adapt to new contexts and technologies,
making it a dynamic area of study in contemporary social sciences and humanities.

2.2 Interdisciplinary Nature of Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is, essentially, interdisciplinary in nature. Although, it has been fully
established now as an academic discipline with a growing body of scholarly work but
during the primary phase of its inception and development in the 1970s, many of its
theoretical perspectives, research approaches and methodological tools were borrowed
from other established academic disciplines such as anthropology, philosophy,
sociology and linguistics. Discourse analysis’ chief concern of analyzing ‘real
language in use’ is grounded in the anthropological tradition of studying the diversity
of human cultures through participant observation to capture their true intricacies. As
language not only transmits culture but is also transmitted by culture, therefore,
anthropologists pay much attention to real language use which is also a central concern
of discourse analysis. Language as a form of social practice has been intriguing for
discourse analysts from various perspectives just like for sociologists. From
philosophy, discourse analysis derives its concern for ordinary language philosophy.
Philosophers such as Austin, Searle and Grice are some prominent figures associated
with the speech act theory which provides a unique perspective on the human
communication system. Its concern with ‘language as doing’ is embedded in the
philosophy of language. To understand utterances, we have to decode not only their
stated meanings but also what speakers of those utterances intend to communicate.
Furthermore, philosophers have been traditionally concerned with the study of
meaning which has been the central concern of discourse analysis too. Discourse
analysts are also interested in investigating the nature of meaning and how it is
constructed during the process of social interaction. The approach to discourse analysis
which is developed from ordinary language philosophy is pragmatics which studies
meaning in the context of its use.

20
Furthermore, discourse analysis’ concern with the orderliness of social interaction
is grounded in the sociological approach of ethnomethodology. The question of
how social order is produced and reproduced has traditionally been a chief concern
of sociology. The central idea of ethnomethodology is that social actors are not
simply following externally imposed roles but are always actively engaged in
creating social order through their behaviour. Conversation is one such aspect of
the orderliness of human behaviour and the approach of conversation analysis is
grounded in the sociological tradition of ethnomethodology which studies
conversation openings, closings and the element of turn-taking, etc.

The field of linguistics has also been very influential in informing theoretical
perspectives and methodological approaches to discourse analysis. Discourse
analysis’ chief concern in understanding the structure of language and linguistic
forms is embedded in linguistics. Linguistics’ fields of phonology and syntax, in
particular, have a great impact on discourse analysis. Linguistics’ concern with
analyzing the structure of language ‘beyond the sentence level’ is also a basic
premise of discourse analysis. Furthermore, formal and structural properties of
human interactions have always been a central concern of linguistics which has
influenced the field of discourse analysis greatly. Discourse analysts also
investigate the structure of language above the sentence level. In light of this
discussion, the interdisciplinary nature of the field of discourse analysis can be
easily ascertained. Like other academic disciplines, discourse analysis also draws
heavily from various interrelated fields of critical inquiry.

2.3 Discourse Structure of Texts

Discourse structure of texts refers to the structural composition of the texts not only
in the typical sense of patterning of grammatical structures but also in the sequential
ordering of the ideas presented in the texts. Discourse analysts are, also, interested
in finding out how people organize what should typically come at the beginning or
the end of an ongoing conversation or in a piece of writing. In other words, how
people foreground certain information in the opening of a conversation or at the
beginning of a written text, etc. The placement or arrangement varies across
cultures and languages. People do not behave identically when it comes to the use
of language apart from certain globally established conventions of appropriate
linguistic behaviour. For instance, it is customary for Japanese to begin their official
communication with a comment on weather conditions while this is not a ritualistic
requirement in English speaking world. There are, thus, particular ways of ordering
what we say or write in spoken or written communication across cultures. The field
of linguistics which deals with this aspect of language use is called intercultural or
cross cultural pragmatics. The first analyst who examined the discourse structure

21
of the texts was Mitchell (1957). He focused on buying and selling situations to
find out how people order what they say in such interactions. He introduced the
notion of stages into discourse analysis which refers to a sequence of steps language
users go through in these interactions. He was, primarily, concerned with the ways
people organize their interactions at an overall textual level. He argued that
language is used cooperatively and the meaning of language is embedded in its
immediate situational context as well as the broader socio-cultural context in which
the text is produced. It is a common observation that when we are located in
different situational contexts like a shopping mall, a restaurant, a hospital, or a
classroom, we know from our experiences of how our interactions are ordered, how
the interactions are typically begun and ended and what kind of language is used
during these interactions. Hasan (1989) focused on service encounters to find out
their obligatory and optional stages. For instance, he points out that greetings are
not typical of service encounters in English when someone is buying something.
He, further, points out that there are numerous ways in which stages for service
encounters can be realized in terms of language use, for instance, could you please
show me an Android phone? Can I have an Android phone? And so on. There is,
thus, no neat one-to-one correspondence between the structural elements of texts
and how they are expressed through language. Similarly, researchers have focused
on naturally occurring talk as well as on institutionalized conversations to analyze
their structure. They have examined conversational openings and closings as well
as turn- taking. They have also investigated how people manage topical shifts and
agenda setting, etc.

2.4 Cultural Ways of Speaking and Writing

As we have already discussed, language use is embedded in its specific socio-
cultural contexts. Therefore, different cultural groups have different ways of using
language in speech and writing as well as different ways of doing things through
language. This aspect of language was explored by Hymes (1964) whose work is
considered to be a reaction against the views of language which took no or little
account of social and cultural contexts which inform the use of language and
where language occurs. He exclusively focused on speech events and related
aspects of roles and relationships of the interlocuters, agenda and culturally
specific settings which impact our linguistic behaviour. For example, the use of
please and thanks is highly ritualized in England whereas in the case of Japan, it
is not ritualized when involved in buying and selling activities. This does not
imply that Japanese culture is rude rather it is very much politeness oriented.
However, it is the situational context which creates differences between the
linguistic behaviour of both cultures.

22
2.5 Discourse and Performance
The notion of discourse as performance or performativity is derived from the works
of Judith Butler which is grounded in the work of British linguist and philosopher
Austin who primarily developed speech act theory in his work ‘How to Do Things
with Words’. He proposed the idea that utterances can perform actions besides
conveying meanings. It was Searle, an American philosopher who further expanded
his work and introduced the concept of intended force of an utterance. The notion
of discourse as performance derives its impetus from the theoretical ideas presented
in these works as Gee (2011) explains:

Discourse is a ‘dance’ that exists in the abstract as a coordinated pattern of words,

deeds, values, beliefs, symbols, tools, objects, times, and places in the here and now
as a performance that is recognizable as just such a coordination. Like a dance, the
performance here and now is never the same. It all comes down, often, to what the
‘masters of the dance’ will allow to be recognized or will be forced to recognize as
a possible instantiation of the dance. (p. 36)

The notion of performativity is based on the view that in saying something, we do

it as propounded by Austin and Searle. That is, we bring states of affairs into being
as a result of what we say and what we do. These kinds of speech acts are called
performatives. For instance, when a priest in the church says, ‘I now pronounce you
as husband and wife’, the action of marriage is performed. Performance, thus,
brings the social world into being (Bucholtz and Hall 2003). Butler, Cameron and
others talk about doing gender in much the way that Gee talks about discourse as
performance. Discourses, then, like the performance of gendered identities, are
socially constructed, rather than ‘natural’. People ‘are who they are because of
(among other things) the way they talk’ not ‘because of who they (already) are’
(Cameron 1999: 144). We, thus, ‘are not who we are because of some inner being
but because of what we do’ (Pennycook 2007: 70). It is, thus, ‘in the doing that the
identity is produced’ (Pennycook 2011).

2.6 Discourse and Intertextuality

All discourses, whether they are spoken or written, gain their meaning against the
backdrop of other discourses. The term intertextuality highlights the relationship
between texts of varied nature produced in the same or different time and space
zones. It also refers to the interrelatedness of the texts which are in dialogue with
each other with or without explicit references. We thus ‘make sense of every word,
every utterance, or act against the background of (some) other words, utterances,
acts of a similar kind’ (Lemke 1995: 23). All texts are, thus, in an intertextual
relationship with other texts. As Bazerman (2004: 83) argues: We create our texts

23
out of the sea of former texts that surround us, the sea of language we live in. And
we understand the texts of others within that same sea. Wang’s (2007) study of
newspaper commentaries in Chinese and English on the events of September 11
provides an example of how writers in different languages and cultural settings
draw on intertextual resources for the writing of their texts and how they position
themselves in relation to their sources. Intertextuality is important too: that is to
say, how language is used not only throughout a single text but also across a set of
different but related texts. Texts have histories and so discourses created at different
times stand as reference points for each other.

2.7 Diversity in Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is now fully established as an academic discipline and it is studied
and practised by scholars, academia and researchers in a variety of fields including but
not limited to linguistics, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, literary studies, gender
studies, psychology and many other interrelated fields and academic disciplines. The
application of discourse analysis in a wide range of fields has led to diversity in theory
and practice. Theorists and practitioners have generated multiple approaches to
discourse analysis with competing or parallel theoretical perspectives.

Discourse analysts are interested in examining instances of a wide range of

language use across disciplines. They may explore, spoken, written or sign
language. A wide array of linguistic ‘texts’ are explored in the study of discourse.
These might consist of a conversation or a letter; a speech, a memo or a report; a
broadcast, a newspaper article or an interview, a lesson, a consultation or a
confrontational encounter, an advertisement, or a piece of literary text. Different
approaches sometimes reach similar conclusions though they use different tools and
terminologies connected to different “micro-communities” of researchers.

Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory in nature. Most of the discourse

analysts are interested in discourse as evidence of reality projecting social life and
social relationships. Therefore, it is mostly used to study those issues which have
social and cultural relevance; for instance, discourse analysts may analyze media
discourses to explore racism and sexism. While other systems of language may
focus on individual linguistic units which compose it, for instance, morphology and
phonology. Discourse analysis focuses on ‘language beyond the sentence’ and
‘language in use’. Thus, discourse analysis is the study of real language used by
real speakers in real situations. Discourse analysts focus on language because it is
an integral and irreducible aspect of social reality. Discourse analysts deal with both
the form and function of language. Thus, they are not only concerned with how
language functions but, also, with the construction of meaning in different social

24
contexts. Thus, it focuses on the social aspects of communication and the way
people use language to create ideological effects. Discourse analysts study the
context of texts to analyze various social aspects at work, for instance, language,
power and ideology. The context of texts may encompass social and cultural
conditions as well as political philosophies, etc. As already discussed, discourse
analysis focuses on extended chunks of language which are larger than a sentence
such as conversations or texts of various kinds. Discourse analysis, usually, focuses
on discourses produced by major societal institutions like religion, law, media and
school, etc. rather than ordinary conversations. Different cultural products are, also,
analyzed to reveal various forms of social injustices explicitly and implicitly
embedded in discourse. In short, discourse analysis is marked by the diversity of
theoretical perspectives and a multiplicity of research methods to explore social
aspects of the texts grounded within their contexts.

SUMMARY POINTS
i. Discourse analysis is a generic term which refers to a variety of approaches
used to analyze and interpret written and spoken discourses.
ii. The field was established and developed during the 1970s and is, also,
labelled as discourse studies.
iii. Theoretically, methodologically and analytically, the field of discourse
analysis is highly diverse and constantly expanding by a growing body of
scholarly work. Thus, there is a considerable variation in the theories and
practices of the field.
iv. Discourse analysis is, basically, a qualitative research approach in social
sciences and humanities which is practised in a variety of academic
disciplines such as linguistics, philosophy, anthropology, sociology,
psychology, cultural studies and gender studies.
v. The term, discourse analysis, was initially used by Zellig Harris (1952) who
was an influential American linguist and notable for his discovery of
transformational structures in language.
vi. Harris (1952) was, primarily, interested in investigating the structure of language
beyond the sentence level. He was, further, interested in exploring how language
features are used to create a variety of texts and their unique styles.
vii. Discourse analysis’ chief concern of analyzing ‘real language in use’ is
grounded in the anthropological tradition of studying the diversity of human
cultures through participant observation to capture their true intricacies.

25
viii. Furthermore, discourse analysis’ concern with the orderliness of social
interaction is grounded in the sociological approach of ethnomethodology.
ix. Discourse structure of texts refers to the structural composition of the texts
not only in the typical sense of patterning of grammatical structures but also
in the sequential ordering of the ideas presented in the texts.
x. The notion of performativity is based on the view that in saying something,
we do it (Cameron and Kulick 2003).
xi. People ‘are who they are because of (among other things) the way they talk’
not ‘because of who they (already) are’ (Cameron 1999: 144).
xii. The term intertextuality highlights the relationship between texts of varied
nature produced in the same or different time and space zones.
xiii. Theorists and practitioners have generated multiple approaches to discourse
analysis with competing or parallel theoretical perspectives.
xiv. The context of texts may encompass social and cultural conditions as well as
political philosophies, etc.
xv. Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory in nature.

SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

1. What is discourse analysis, and how does it differ from other approaches to
studying language and communication?
2. Explain the main principles and methodologies used in discourse analysis to
analyze spoken or written texts.
3. How can discourse analysis be applied to study the representation of gender
roles and stereotypes in media and advertising?
4. Discuss the role of power and ideology in shaping discourse and its impact on
social structures and institutions.
5. Provide a practical example of discourse analysis applied to a specific real-
world context, such as political debates or online forums, and describe the
insights gained from the analysis.

26
Unit–3

DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS AND GRAMMAR

Written by: Dr Rashida Imran

Reviewed by: Prof Dr Sarwet Rasul
27
 CONTENTS

Page #
Overview .................................................................................................. 29

Objectives ................................................................................................ 29

3.1 Interrelatedness of Grammar and Discourse .................................... 31

3.2 Discourse Perspective of Grammar ................................................. 32

3.3 Cohesion in Discourse ..................................................................... 32

3.4 Reference ......................................................................................... 33

3.5 Lexical Cohesion ............................................................................. 35

3.6 Theme and Rheme ........................................................................... 35

3.7 Coherence ........................................................................................ 36

3.8 Interrelatedness of Cohesion and Coherence ................................... 37

3.9 Challenges in Discourse and Grammar ............................................ 38

Summary Points ....................................................................................... 39

Self-Assessment Questions ...................................................................... 40

28
 OVERVIEW

This unit examines discourse and grammar and highlights their interrelatedness and
the way these influence and shape each other. Technical concepts like cohesion and
coherence are extensively discussed. Furthermore, the terms theme and rheme are
elaborated as well as references and their types to understand how discourse and
grammar are interlinked.

OBJECTIVES

After reading this unit, you will be able to: -

i. explain the interrelationship of discourse and grammar

ii. determine how discourse and grammar influence each other

iii. illustrate the difference between coherence and cohesion in discourse

iv. identify the theme and rehem in the text

v. interpret the relationship between reference and the context

29
Language is a complex system that enables communication among individuals and
serves as one of the most important unifying factors of a society. The study of language
encompasses various aspects related to its structure, word formation, sounds and
meaning construction processes. Two of its most important and interrelated aspects are
discourse and grammar. Discourse refers to not only language but also the broader
context of language use, including the organization of information, the structure of
conversations, and the social and cultural implications of communication. Discourse,
thus, is the use of language in context, extending beyond individual sentences to
encompass entire conversations, written texts, and even larger communicative events.
It also embodies the large socio-cultural context in which language use is grounded. It
investigates the way speakers or writers connect sentences and ideas, bring coherence
to the message, and how language is used to achieve specific communicative goals.
Discourse analysis is the study of these patterns and structures that govern
communication. As stated earlier, discourse is profoundly influenced by the social
context in which it occurs. Cultural norms, social hierarchies, and power dynamics can
significantly impact how language is used. For instance, the choice of vocabulary,
politeness strategies, and interactional styles may vary depending on the participants'
roles, power relations and setting.

Grammar is the system of rules that governs the structure of sentences and the
formation of words in a language. It provides the framework for constructing
meaningful expressions. The study of grammar involves understanding syntax,
morphology, and phonology. Each of these sub-systems deals with a unique aspect
of language. For instance, syntax deals with the arrangement of words to form
grammatically correct sentences. It encompasses the rules for word order, sentence
structure and phrase formation. Different languages have diverse syntactic
structures and understanding these variations is crucial for effective communication
and language learning. Similarly, morphology is concerned with the internal
structure of words and how they are formed. It includes the study of morphemes
which are the smallest units of meaning or grammatical form within a language.
Morphemes can be classified into two categories: free morphemes, which can stand
alone as words and bound morphemes, which must attach to other morphemes to
convey meaning. Free morphemes include structural and lexical morphemes
whereas bound morphemes include inflectional and derivational morphemes.
Another important element of the grammatical study of language is phonology
which focuses on the sounds of a language and how they are organized into
phonemes, which are the distinctive sound units that differentiate meaning. The
study of phonology is essential for understanding pronunciation patterns and accent
variations. The study of grammar may include semantics and pragmatics which deal
with two distinct aspects of meaning. The former investigates literal meanings of
words while the latter deals with studying meaning in the context.

30
3.1 Interrelatedness of Grammar and Discourse
Grammar and discourse are interrelated in the sense that discourse stands for
‘language beyond the sentence level’ and ‘language in use’ whereas grammar
provides the systematic framework to analyze the form and structure of a language.
Thus, grammar provides the structural foundation for discourse. It sets the rules for
constructing phrases, clauses, sentences and utterances, which are the building
blocks of any communicative act. The organization of ideas and the use of cohesive
devices in discourse rely heavily on grammatical structures. On the other hand,
discourse influences grammar as well. The communicative context and the intended
message can lead to variations in syntactic structure, word choice, and the use of
specific grammatical constructions. Grammatical forms and functions are highly
important in this regard as there is no neat and one-to-one coordination between a
grammatical form and its function. Therefore, the intended meaning of an utterance
cannot be fully understood by the grammatical form only but by the context of
‘language in use’. Thus, discourse and grammar are not only interrelated but
interdependent in their conceptualization and application. There are grammatical
variations for spoken and written forms of language. For instance, in spoken
language, sentences are less rigidly structured compared to written language due to
the fluidity and interactive nature of conversation. Written language, on the other
hand, is highly structured and rigidly regulated by grammatical rules and principles.
Grammar analysis involves examining the grammatical structures used in texts or
discourse genres of varied nature. This includes identifying syntactic patterns,
subject and verb agreement, word classes, verb tenses, and other grammatical
features that contribute to the overall meaning, cohesion and coherence of the
communication.

To gain a comprehensive understanding of language use, researchers often combine

discourse and grammar analysis. By examining both the broader context and the
underlying linguistic structures, they uncover how language functions to achieve
specific communicative goals and express social and cultural norms. Thus,
discourse and grammar are two essential components of language that are
intricately linked. Discourse provides the context and organization for effective
communication, while grammar establishes the rules and structures that underpin
language use.

The relationship between grammar and discourse is dynamic and reciprocal,

shaping the way we interact, convey meaning, and effectively communicate. By
studying the interplay between discourse and grammar, we can develop a better
understanding of the complexities of human communication and enrich our
understanding of language as a powerful tool for communication and the expression

31
of creative ideas. For instance, discourse relies heavily on pronouns and referencing
expressions to avoid redundancy and maintain cohesion. Clear and consistent use
of pronouns enhances the flow of information and aids in comprehension. The
choice of grammatical structures and language style can significantly impact the
tone and intention of the discourse. Different grammatical structures can convey
different levels of formality and informality.

3.2 Discourse Perspective of Grammar

The study of grammar, owing to the progressive nature of critical inquiry in the
field, has witnessed a marked difference in its underlying theoretical perspectives.
Traditionally, it was treated as a system of language prescribing rules for the
creation of correct syntactic structures. However, this essentialist sentence based
perspective has been shifted to a discourse-based perspective which focuses on
language beyond the sentence level as well as language use in real life. Hughes and
McCarthy (1998), for instance, have argued that traditional grammatical
explanations do not account for longer than sentence constructions of language in
the texts representing the real world. Linguists like Halliday also investigated
grammatical patterns and vocabulary in the process of encoding and decoding
meaning in the text as well as its connection with the contexts of its usage. Celce-
Murcia (1997) proposed that grammatical forms must be analyzed in the context of
their occurrence in written or spoken text for meaningful engagement rather than
in disconnected or isolated sentences.

Hughes and McCarthy (1998) argued that discourse-based grammar is more

productive as compared to traditional sentence-based grammar as it highlights the
interrelatedness of form, function and context which traditional grammar lacks as
it does not focus on the context of an utterance. Therefore, discourse-based
grammar is more revealing as its descriptive focus lies on the appropriateness of
our linguistic choices in various contexts.

3.3 Cohesion in Discourse

Hasan (1989a, 1989b) highlighted two critically important attributes of the texts
from the discourse perspective which are ‘unity of structure’ and ‘unity of texture’.
Unity of structure refers to patterns which are combined to create information
structure, focus and flow in a text enabling the readability of the text. On the other
hand, unity of texture stands for the ways language items tie meaning together not
only in the text but also tie meaning in the text to its social context of occurrence.
Hasan (1989b: 71) described texture as being ‘a matter of meaning relations’. An
important notion in this regard is that of a tie which connects the meanings of words
to each other as well as to the world outside the text. The basis for cohesion, and in

32
turn texture, thus, is semantic in nature. For instance, the meaning of linguistic
entities that refer outside of the text, such as ‘it’ and ‘that’, can be derived from the
social context in which the text is embedded. If you go to a restaurant and order
chicken steak and the waiter asks you, ‘How would you like to have it?’ Your
knowledge of the context will help you to infer the meaning of ‘it’ as what should
be served either vegetables, mashed potatoes or French fries with chicken steak.
Thus, cohesion is the aspect which integrates discourse and grammar in such a way
that both shape and are shaped by each other. Cohesion stands for the structural ties
in the text which serve as a unifying factor to connect different phrases, clauses,
sentences and paragraphs and give the text the form of a unified whole. Cohesion,
also, refers to the linguistic devices used to link various parts of a text in meaning-
making and also connect the text to its context. Cohesive relationships are
established through cohesive devices including but not limited to referring
expressions, collocates or the words which frequently occur together, semantic
relations, substitution and ellipsis, etc. All these cohesive linkers contribute to the
unity of texture of a text and help to make the text cohesive. Cohesion is an essential
element in constructing meaningful and effective discourse by creating connections
and establishing relationships between different parts of a text. It plays a crucial
role in maintaining coherence, facilitating comprehension, and conveying meaning
effectively. Cohesion ensures that a piece of language, whether spoken or written,
flows smoothly and logically, allowing the reader or listener to follow the
progression of ideas and unity of thought.

As described earlier, cohesion is not limited to written language; it is equally vital

in spoken language, where cohesive devices help listeners follow a speaker's flow
of thought and understand the intended message. A cohesive text is readable,
understandable, and engaging. In contrast, lack of cohesion can lead to confusion
and difficulty in grasping the intended meaning resulting in miscommunication.
Concluding, cohesion is the glue that holds a text together and is essentially
required for the smooth flow of thought and logical progression of the central thesis
of the texts.

3.4 Reference
Reference is a cohesive device that involves using words or expressions to refer to
entities, ideas, or concepts in a text or its socio-cultural context. Reference enables
the reader to retrieve the identity of an item either within or outside of the text. The
purpose of reference is to establish connections between different parts of the text
and help the reader or listener identify the entities being talked about. The main
reference patterns are anaphoric, cataphoric, exophoric and homophoric reference.
The anaphoric reference occurs when a word or expression refers back to something

33
that was mentioned earlier in the text. The word used for anaphoric reference is
known as anaphor. An anaphor helps avoid repetition and maintains cohesion by
linking the current part of the text to the preceding one. Examples of anaphors
include pronouns which are used in the place of nouns to avoid repetition. For
instance, ‘Iqbal was a great philosopher. His poetry reflects the idea of self-reliance.
In this case ‘his’ is an example of anaphoric reference. If a reader is not sure what
is being referred to, they will typically read back in the text to find the answer.
Pronouns in subjective, objective as well as possessive cases are used as anaphoric
expressions and refer back to the entities mentioned in the text or its context.

Cataphoric reference occurs when a word or phrase refers forward to another word
or phrase which is used later in the text. The word used for cataphoric reference is
known as a cataphor. Cataphoric references are less common than anaphoric
references and are often used to create anticipation or establish the background for
upcoming information. An example of a cataphor is, ‘I barely saved myself from
it, a giant cobra was ready to sting in the dark.’ In this example, the identity of ‘it’
follows, rather than precedes the reference item. It is thus an example of a
cataphoric, rather than anaphoric reference.

Exophoric reference involves using words or expressions to refer to entities or

concepts outside the text, often relying on the physical or situational context.
Exophoric references are not explicitly mentioned in the text and require the reader
or listener to infer the intended referent from the surrounding context. For example,
‘That accident was terrible’, in this sentence ‘that’ is an exophoric reference
because it refers to an incident outside the text, in the physical environment.
Contextual sensibility is required to successfully interpret exophoric references
otherwise it may lead to ambiguity and misunderstanding of the intended meaning
of the text.

Homophoric reference is where the identity of the item can be retrieved by

reference to cultural knowledge, in general, rather than the specific context of the
text. An example of this type of reference is ‘The Queen'. This phrase usually
referred to the Queen of England, and typically the late Queen Elizabeth.

Proper use of reference is essential for effective communication as it helps the

reader or listener keep track of the entities being discussed and understand the
relationships between different parts of the text. Ambiguous or unclear references
can lead to confusion and misinterpretation. In addition to pronouns, other linguistic
devices can also function as references, including demonstratives and noun phrases.
Furthermore, context plays a crucial role in understanding and interpreting the use
of references. The co-text and the knowledge shared between the speaker and

34
listener or writer and reader are vital for resolving references and determining the
intended referents.

3.5 Lexical Cohesion

Lexical cohesion can be described as lexical ties or lexical relationships in the
meanings of lexical entities in the text. Lexical cohesion is created between content
words and the relationship between them. It may be reflected through the use of
repetition, synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy and collocation. Certain words may
be repeated in the text to create meaningful connections either through words with
similar or opposite meanings. Collocation refers to the words which frequently
occur together like bread and butter, etc. Collocation is not restricted to a single text
but is part of textual knowledge in general in which pairs of words can logically
occur together. This knowledge of collocation is another way in which a text has
the property of texture. Another feature of the text which creates lexical cohesion
is the use of lexical bundles. Byrd and Coxhead (2010:32) define lexical bundles as
three or more words that occur in fixed or semi-fixed combinations ‘that are
repeated without change for a set number of times in a particular corpus’. Different
software programs are used to identify varying sets of lexical bundles in large data
sets. The frequency of their occurrence provides valuable insights into the way
speakers and writers create unity of texture in their texts. Some typical examples of
lexical bundles include ‘as a result of’, ‘on the other hand’, etc. The use of
conjunctions, also, contributes to the unity of texture in the texts. These are certain
words or phrases that serve to structure and organize discourse. They help indicate
relationships between ideas, transitions between topics, or shifts in attitude or tone.
Some of the chief representative instances are ‘but’, ‘however’, ‘in addition to’,
‘nevertheless’, finally’, etc. The aspects of substitution and ellipses also contribute
to the unity of texture. Substitution refers to replacing one linguistic form with
another to avoid repetition. In the case of ellipses, on the other hand, essential
information is omitted leading a listener or reader to infer it from the previous
information given in the text.

3.6 Theme and Rheme

Theme and rheme are important elements which contribute to the unity of texture in
the text. The relationship between theme and rheme is important in developing focus
and flow of information in the text. Theme is ‘the element which serves as the point of
departure of the message’ (Halliday 1985: 38). It also introduces ‘information
prominence’ into the clause. For instance, in the sentence, ‘Arbitrariness is a
widespread term signalling no natural relationship between a linguistic form and its
meaning’, arbitrariness is the theme whereas ‘is a widespread term signalling no natural
relationship between a linguistic from and its meaning’ is the rheme.

35
The theme sets the context for the new information while the rheme is the new
informative part of a clause or sentence. It may, also, stand for the information that
is introduced or highlighted for the first time which serves as the focus of the
message. The rheme represents the viewpoint or the comment on the theme,
providing new information that develops the textual structure. Theme and rheme
contribute to structuring and processing information. The concepts of theme and
rheme are also used in the examination of thematic progression (Eggins 2004), or
method of development of texts (Fries 2002). Thematic progression refers to how
the theme of a clause may select meaning from a preceding theme or rheme. This
is a basic way in which information flow is created in a text.

In longer texts, the use of theme and rheme helps maintain unity of structure. By
introducing themes that refer back to previously mentioned information, speakers
or writers remind the audience of the context and establish connections between
different parts of the texts. Rhemes, on the other hand, provide new information
and build on the established themes, advancing the narrative or argument. Theme
and rheme are fundamental elements in discourse organization, providing a way to
structure information and convey meaning effectively. By understanding the
concepts of theme and rheme, we gain insights into how information is organized
and conveyed in sentences and longer units of discourse, contributing to effective
communication across different discourse genres.

3.7 Coherence
Coherence refers to the overall sense of unity and connectedness in a text or
conversation. Achieving coherence involves organizing information logically and
sequentially to ensure that the message is clear to the recipient and there is no
ambiguity. It, also, refers to the overall sense of unity and understanding in a text.
A coherent discourse is logical and easy to follow, with ideas connected in a
meaningful manner. Coherence is a fundamental concept in discourse and
highlights the elements within a text or conversation that are connected to create
meaningful and understandable communication.

Coherence, also, refers to the overall logical and meaningful organization of a text
either in spoken or written form. It is concerned with the flow of ideas and
information, ensuring that the text makes sense and is easy to follow. Coherence is
achieved when the content is well-structured and arranged in a manner that is easy
for the reader or listener to understand. Some of the key elements that contribute to
coherence include the logical ordering of ideas and information in a linear
sequence, allowing the audience to follow the progression of the text effortlessly.
Furthermore, continuity of the topic in the sense that the text should maintain a

36
consistent focus on the main topic or subject, avoiding unnecessary digressions that
might confuse the reader would make it further coherent. Similarly, the use of
transition words and phrases (e.g., furthermore, however, in addition) signals
relationships between ideas and facilitates smooth transitions between sentences
and paragraphs. Every piece of information included in the text should be relevant
to the main topic and contribute to the overall message. Adequate contextual
information should be provided to help the target audience in understanding the
references and implications of the text.

3.8 Interrelatedness of Cohesion and Coherence

Cohesion and coherence are closely related and often work in harmony to create
effective communication. Cohesion provides the necessary links between different
elements in a text, helping to establish relationships between sentences and
paragraphs. It enables the reader to recognize how ideas are connected and
understand the flow of information. Coherence, on the other hand, ensures that the
text is structured in a way that makes sense to the reader or listener. It allows the
audience to grasp the main ideas and the purpose of the communication.

Hence, cohesion and coherence are essential aspects of discourse that contribute to
effective communication. Cohesion deals with the linguistic connections that tie the
text together, while coherence focuses on the logical organization of ideas to create
a meaningful and easily understandable discourse. Writers and speakers use various
linguistic devices and structural strategies to achieve cohesion and coherence,
ensuring that their messages are clear and accessible to the intended audience.

Both cohesion and coherence work together to ensure effective communication in

various forms of written and spoken language, such as essays, stories,
conversations, speeches, and more. The use of references, substitution, ellipsis,
conjunctions and lexical cohesion, further, enhances this aspect. Grammar plays a
critical role in establishing cohesion and coherence in discourse. By following
grammatical rules and structures, writers and speakers ensure that their message is
conveyed clearly and comprehensibly.

The use of anaphora and cataphora creates a piece of cohesive and coherent text.
Anaphora refers to the use of pronouns or other expressions to refer back to
previously mentioned elements, creating cohesion within a text. Cataphora, on the
other hand, involves referring forward to elements that appear later in the discourse.
Both these devices are heavily reliant on grammatical structures to establish
meaningful connections between different parts of a text both in its written and
spoken forms.

37
3.9 Challenges in Discourse and Grammar
While discourse and grammar are essential for effective communication, they also
present various challenges for language users. For instance, ambiguity arises when
a sentence or phrase can be interpreted in multiple ways, leading to potential
misunderstandings. Proper use of grammar can help reduce ambiguity and ensure
clarity in the use of idiomatic expressions or phrases whose meaning cannot be
derived from individual words. Learners of a language often struggle to understand
and use these expressions correctly especially if they have no contextual awareness
of their usage. Similarly, various stylistic devices and the use of figurative
language, such as metaphors and similes, add depth and richness to discourse but
can also lead to complexity by making it challenging to interpret and use
appropriately. Different contexts and situations require specific language registers
and styles. Adapting grammar to match the appropriate register can be complex,
especially for second language learners who do not have the required contextual
sensibility of accurate and appropriate language use.

Thus, discourse and grammar are integral aspects of language that facilitate
effective communication. Discourse organizes language in meaningful ways, while
grammar provides the rules and structures for constructing coherent and
comprehensible sentences. The interaction between discourse and grammar is a
dynamic process that shapes language over time. Understanding these elements and
their interplay is crucial for achieving clarity, precision, and effectiveness in
discourse. A basic understanding of the interrelatedness of discourse and grammar
can lead to improved language proficiency and enhance the overall quality of
discursive communication in both spoken and written contexts. Discourse and
grammar are deeply interconnected, with each influencing the other in several
ways. The way language is used in discourse can influence grammatical structures
over time. Language is constantly evolving and certain patterns of speech and
writing may become more prevalent in a language, leading to linguistic changes.
Grammar provides the structural framework for organizing ideas in discourse.
Proper use of grammar ensures that sentences are well-formed and coherent,
leading to effective communication. Without grammar, discourse would lack
structure and clarity and, similarly, discursive practices impact grammatical
structures in their spoken and written realizations.

38
 SUMMARY POINTS

i. Discourse refers to the broader context of language use, including the

organization of information, the structure of conversations, and the social and
cultural implications of communication.
ii. Discourse is the use of language in context, extending beyond individual
sentences to encompass entire conversations, written texts, and even larger
communicative events.
iii. It also embodies the large socio-cultural context in which language use is
grounded. It investigates the way speakers or writers connect sentences and
ideas, bring coherence to the message, and how language is used to achieve
specific communicative goals.
iv. Grammar is the system of rules that governs the structure of sentences and the
formation of words in a language. It provides the framework for constructing
meaningful expressions and conveying precise meanings.
v. The study of grammar involves understanding syntax, morphology, and
phonology. Each of these sub-systems of language deals with a unique aspect
of language.
vi. Syntax deals with the arrangement of words to form grammatical sentences.
It encompasses the rules for word order, sentence structure, and phrase
formation.
vii. Different languages have diverse syntactic structures and understanding these
variations is crucial for effective communication and language learning.
viii. Similarly, morphology is concerned with the internal structure of words and
how they are formed.
ix. Achieving coherence involves organizing information logically and sequentially
to ensure that the message is clear to the recipient and there is no ambiguity.
x. Cohesion stands for the structural ties in the text which serve as a unifying
factor to connect different phrases, clauses, sentences and paragraphs and
give the text the form of a unified whole.
xi. Reference is a cohesive device that involves using words or expressions to
refer to entities, ideas, or concepts in a text or its socio-cultural context.

39
xii. Lexical cohesion is created between content words and the relationship
between them, it may be reflected through the use of repetition, synonymy,
antonymy, hyponymy and collocation.
xiii. Both cohesion and coherence work together to ensure effective
communication in various forms of written and spoken language, such as
essays, stories, conversations, speeches, and more.
xiv. The relationship between theme and rheme is important in developing focus
and flow of information in the text.
xv. The concepts of theme and rheme are also used in the examination of thematic
progression (Eggins 2004), or method of development of texts (Fries 2002).

SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

1. How can an analysis of the relationship between grammar and discourse shed
light on the cultural and social dimensions of language use and what insights
can be gained about identity, power, and ideology through this examination?
2. How does the relationship between cohesion and coherence in a text
contribute to its overall effectiveness in conveying meaning and what are the
key linguistic elements that ensure seamless connections and logical
progression between ideas within the discourse?
3. How does the context in which a reference is used impact its interpretation
and relevance within communication?
4. How does the thematic structure and thematic progression in a text enhance
its clarity and reader engagement and what role does the theme-rheme
relationship play in shaping the overall discourse's information flow and
coherence?
5. How does the use of reference in discourse, such as pronouns, demonstratives
and definite articles, depend on the context of communication and how does
context influence the resolution of ambiguous references to ensure effective
communication?

40
Unit–4

PRAGMATICS AND
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Written by: Dr Rashida Imran

Reviewed by: Prof Dr Sarwet Rasul

41
 CONTENTS
Page #
Overview .................................................................................................. 43

Objectives ................................................................................................ 43

4.1 Context and its Significance ............................................................ 45

4.2 Reference: Referring Expressions and Referents ............................. 47

4.3 Inference and Shared Assumptions .................................................. 49

4.4 Presuppositions & Entailments ........................................................ 50

4.5 Speech Acts ..................................................................................... 51

4.6 Politeness ......................................................................................... 52

4.7 Cooperative Principle ...................................................................... 53

Summary Points ....................................................................................... 55

Self-Assessment Questions ...................................................................... 56

42
 OVERVIEW

This unit focuses on the interrelatedness of discourse and pragmatics. It highlights

how an integrated approach of discourse and pragmatics to language use can
generate invaluable insights into processes of meaning construction and
transmission in social contexts. The unit, further, aims at defining and describing
fundamental concepts and key terms used in the study of pragmatic analysis of
discourse. Furthermore, the unit introduces major theories of the field and develops
basic competence and skills for a more critical and detailed exploration of the field
to enhance theoretical and methodological understanding.

OBJECTIVES
After studying this unit, you should be able to: -

i. differentiate between ‘conceptual meaning’ and ‘speaker meaning’

ii. analyse the significance of context in the study of meaning

iii. illustrate the difference between anaphora and cataphora references

iv. differentiate between direct and indirect speech acts

v. explain maxims of conversational cooperation

vi. evaluate the importance of politeness in communication

vii. understand the interrelatedness of discourse analysis and pragmatics

43
The word pragmatic is etymologically derived from the Greek word ‘pragma’,
meaning ‘deed’. The term is commonly used in real life to refer to something like
‘realistic’ or ‘practical’, for instance, someone has a pragmatic approach to life.
Technically speaking, pragmatics, as a field of critical inquiry, is interested in
investigating how language is used to do things and mean things in real-life situations,
an aspect of language which we considered in the very first unit of this book.

Pragmatics, as a subfield of linguistics, deals with the study of meaning in the

‘context’ of an utterance. Thus, pragmatics is concerned with real language use in
real-life situations and as the process of meaning-making is not independent of its
context, therefore pragmatics is often labelled as the study of contextual meaning.
Furthermore, pragmatics examines the ways context contributes to the development
of the meaning of words, phrases and utterances in real-life communicative settings.
Therefore, the study of the context of an utterance and its impact on the construction
and transmission of meaning is critically important in the field of pragmatics. In
other words, pragmatics focuses on the meaning as conveyed by the speaker or
writer and interpreted by the listener or reader engaged in a communicative event.
In this sense, pragmatics is the study of ‘speaker and/or writer meaning’ or what
speakers and writers intend to communicate through their speech and writing. This
is the foremost important aspect of interrelatedness of pragmatics and discourse
analysis as both fields are interested in investigating ‘language in use’.
Furthermore, both fields explore how meaning is constructed and interpreted based
on situational, social, and cultural contexts.

Furthermore, Pragmatics not only investigates the contextual meaning of an

utterance but also takes it as its basic premise to examine the fundamental element
of the brevity of human interactions. It focuses on how speakers and writers rely
heavily on the assumption of ‘shared knowledge’ and communicate more than
actually expressed by their words, phrases and sentences. Similarly, listeners and
readers are also dependent on shared knowledge assumptions to decode the hidden
or implicit meanings which are not directly stated by words either spoken or
written. This is another important aspect where pragmatics and discourse analysis
coincide as both fields analyze the interaction between speakers and listeners. They
consider how speakers convey meaning and how listeners interpret and respond to
that meaning.

Viewed in this sense, pragmatics and discourse analysis are interrelated in

investigating intended or implied meaning which is not derived from the words
uttered or written but transmitted through communicative intention of the speakers
and writers. Pragmatics is contrasted with semantics on the same grounds, whereas
the latter focuses on literal, dictionary or conceptual meanings of words or phrases,

44
the former focuses on the communicative intention of the speakers and writers and
seeks to examine how the construction and transmission of meaning is dependent
on how language is used in real- life interactions of a certain speech community.
Thus, pragmatics and discourse analysis are concerned with language as it is used
in real-life situations, rather than as an abstract system of rules. They study spoken
and written texts in their natural contexts.

Moreover, pragmatics is also interested in analyzing the interrelatedness of form

and function as there is no neat and one-to-one coordination between a linguistic
form and its function, a linguistic form may serve multiple functions and similarly
multiple linguistic forms may be used to denote a single function. In short,
pragmatics studies a stretch of spoken or written discourse which is essentially
grounded in the context of real language use and the way language is used by
speakers and writers enabling listeners and readers to make sense and decode
meanings which are not explicitly stated. Discourse analysis also investigates
language structure including its form and function and explores the ways people
use language to communicate more than expressed by words. Multimodal analysis
of discourse goes beyond language and considers other features of communication,
such as symbols, signs, etc. specially in media discourses to understand the
processes of encoding and decoding of meaning.

4.1 Context and its Significance

Discourse analysts are interested in examining ‘language above the sentence level’
as well as ‘language in use’. Pragmatics, also, investigates real language use in real-
life situations and the way people encode and decode the meaning of their social
interactions. Human interactions are essentially grounded in their context and
without contextual awareness, we cannot fully comprehend or make sense of our
communication. Therefore, the notion of context is critically important in
understanding the communicative intentions of speakers or writers. Contextual
understanding is important not only in understanding ordinary talk but also in more
formal types of institutionalized conversations which exhibit asymmetrical power
relations. Similarly, certain discourse genres are essentially grounded in their
context and the construction and transmission of meaning cannot be fully
understood without subjecting the text into its milieu. Literary, media and political
discourse are prototypes of such genres. Therefore, discourse analysis not only
focuses on the nature of language used in a text but also subjects the text into its
context of production to decipher its meanings.

The term context may refer to a linguistic context which is often termed as co-text.
It stands for other linguistic entities or words used in the same text whether the text

45
consists of a phrase, sentence, paragraph or even larger stretches of a full-length
text, etc. The linguistic co-text largely influences our interpretation of a particular
word, phrase or sentence. The co-text may altogether change our anticipated
meanings or certain predictions during the process of our active engagement with
the text. For instance, if the word ‘bank’ is used in a sentence with accompanying
words like ‘transaction’ and ‘savings’, we fully understand that it refers to a
financial institution and not the bank of a river. Furthermore, context also refers to
the physical setting, for instance, a signboard with a sign of a cigarette with a
diagonal crossing line in a public place stands for the idea that it is a smoking
forbidden territory, a hospital, etc. Moreover, context may stand for an immediate
situational setting where words are uttered. For instance, you are trying to fix a
technical issue with one of your electric appliances in your kitchen and one of your
friends offers their services. Consequently, instead of resolving the issue as you
have expected, the gadget turns out to be more problematic. Desperately, you say
‘Thank you, you are a genius!’ in a rising tone. The physical situation as well as
your sarcastic remark and rising tone communicate to a nearby spectator that it is
not an honest expression of genuine gratitude but rather a subtle and implicit
expression of disapproval and criticism. If your friend refrains from further
assistance, it means that he/she has successfully decoded your communicative
intention which is altogether different from what has been explicitly stated in your
words. Thus, the knowledge of the physical situation leads to a successful
interpretation of the meaning of an utterance. However, if your remark is overheard
by someone who has not witnessed the scene, may reach an inference which is quite
similar to the proposition made by your utterance. Studying meaning in its context
blurs the boundaries between discourse analysis and pragmatics as both are
interested in investigating language use in its context.

Context, often, stands for the larger socio-cultural context or knowledge of the
social world which is reflected through societal values, cultural practices, political
philosophies and socio-psychological factors influencing communication. In
everyday life, we come across certain texts which require socio-cultural
information to analyze meanings in their entirety like media discourse, literary
discourse, discourse of politics and cultural productions, etc. Literary products are
always subjected to their larger socio-cultural context to derive their meanings in
essence. Have you ever wondered how we make sense of a tautology like ‘Lahore
is Lahore’, which apparently seems to be meaningless and does not have any
communicative value but this is the knowledge of the socio-cultural context which
makes this statement meaningful and reveals its communicative significance?
Therefore, it is evident that contextual sensibility is the basic requirement to
understand the implicit and subtle meanings of utterances and the communicative
intentions of the speakers. Thus, the critical relevance and importance of context in

46
the processes of encoding and decoding meaning is the central focus of scholarly
investigation in both Pragmatics and discourse analysis as language use is not only
grounded in its context but also informed by its context.

4.2 Reference: Referring Expressions and Referents

As described earlier, participants involved in a communicative event refer to the
immediate situational context as well as the larger socio-cultural context to make
communication meaningful and decode the implied meaning of the talk exchange
successfully. Reference is a linguistic term which is defined as the act of using
language to refer to the entities in the context. Thus, reference is an act in which a
speaker or a writer uses linguistic forms to enable the listener or reader to identify
something in the text or in the real world. These linguistic forms are termed
referring expressions while the entities which they refer to in the real world are
called referents. For instance, in the utterance, ‘I like to read the poetry of Robert
Frost’, ‘I’ is the referring expression which refers to the speaker of this utterance
who is the referent.

Similarly, proper noun ‘Robert Frost’ is the referring expression which refers to the
modern American poet ‘Robert Frost’ in the real social world who is the referent.
To perform an act of reference, we can make use of proper nouns as is the case with
‘Robert Frost’ in the previous example. Similarly, you may remember a class fellow
who was often referred to as ‘Newton’ by the teachers because of his intelligence.
We can, also, use pronouns to refer to people.

A reference can be classified into two basic types. When a referring expression
mentions a referent for the first time in the sense that there is no previous reference
in the text, this is called an exophoric reference. Exophoric reference is dependent
on the context outside of the text either immediate situational context which may
be termed as setting or the real social world. Thus, in the previous example, Robert
Frost is an exophoric reference who refers to a person in the social world who was
not previously mentioned in the text.

On the other hand, when a referring expression refers to an entity, already

mentioned within the text, it would be an example of an endophoric reference. For
instance, in a sentence like, ‘Shakespeare is considered to be one of the greatest
dramatists of his times. He has, undoubtedly, produced many tragedies of
unmatched quality’, the pronoun ‘he’ is an example of endophoric reference
because it refers back to Shakespeare who is already mentioned in the sentence.
Endophoric reference is, further, classified into two types: anaphora and cataphora.
In the previous example ‘he’ links back to something that is mentioned in the

47
preceding text, this is called anaphora while cataphora is the opposite of anaphora
as the referring expression often links forward to a referent in the text that follows.
This is evident in the given example, ‘She was about to put her foot on it in the
darkness, it was a large cobra ready to sting in the dark’, the pronoun ‘it’ refers to
cobra and this is an instance of cataphora reference as ‘it’ appears in the text before
the referent ‘cobra’. Reference and its different kinds are presented in the following
pictorial form for the sake of clarity.

Reference

Endophora Exophora

Anaphora Cataphora

Referring expressions are not only used to refer to the entities in the context but
also to make the text both cohesive and coherent. They are commonly labelled as
cohesive devices or cohesive linkers. The words which point to the entities they
refer to are called deixis. These are very common words which we frequently use
in everyday talk exchanges and these cannot be interpreted if the listener is not
aware of the context especially the physical context of the speaker. These are words
such as here and there, this or that, now and then, yesterday, today or tomorrow, as
well as pronouns such as you, me, she, him, it, them, etc. There are some sentences
which are very difficult to interpret if we do not know the relevant contextual
information. For instance, an utterance like ‘Come here, hand it over to me and
discuss this issue with her right now’ would be very vague and difficult to interpret
if we do not know what do ‘here’, ‘it’ ‘this’, ‘her’ and ‘now’ refer to and we do not
have any idea about the relevant background contextual information. These words
are technically known as deictic expressions, from the Greek word deixis which
means ‘pointing’ via language.

48
Deictic expressions are classified into three kinds: person deixis, spatial deixis and
temporal deixis. Words and phrases used to point to people are called person deixis,
for instance, him, her, it, them, these students, etc. Words and phrases used to point
to location are called spatial deixis, for instance, here, there, near, far, etc. While
temporal deixis refers to words and phrases used to point to time, for instance, now,
then, recently, previously, etc.

Discourse analysis and pragmatics are interested in investigating the use of

references in language. However, there is a difference in perspective. Pragmatics
focuses on the use of references as an element of encoding and decoding meaning.
On the other hand, discourse analysis not only highlights its role in the meaning
making process but also takes into consideration its usage in making linguistic text
cohesive and coherent. Furthermore, anaphoric references can reveal the structure
of discourse by signaling which pieces of information are backgrounded or
foregrounded and how new information relates to previously mentioned
information. Similarly, in more complex texts, cataphora can be used to manage the
flow of information and to handle intricate discourse structures where multiple
entities and events are interrelated. Thus, anaphora and cataphora are critically
important in both written and spoken communication and enhance the coherence,
efficiency and stylistic quality of discourse, making them significant to be studied
in pragmatics and discourse analysis.

4.3 Inference and Shared Assumptions

In one of the previous sections, we discussed the role of ‘contextual sensibility’ in
interpreting the pragmatic and discursive meaning of an utterance. This contextual
sensibility entails relevant information which is necessary to derive the intended
meaning of an utterance besides recognizing what words ‘conventionally’ mean in
a sentence. This idea of contextual sensibility enables a speaker or a writer to
presuppose that the listener or the reader has the relevant information to infer the
meaning correctly. This relevant information is often labelled as ‘shared knowledge
assumptions’, the assumptions or the worldview which is shared by both a speaker
and a listener or a writer and reader to successfully encode and decode a message.

An inference is defined as additional information used by the listener or a reader to

create a connection between what is generally stated by the words used by a speaker
or a writer and what is actually communicated. For instance, if an advertisement of
a particular fast food chain states, ‘It’s the taste’, our worldview and shared
knowledge assumptions about the role of the advertising industry in promoting
consumer culture will enable us to believe in the positive connotation of the
message that the taste is good. On the other hand, the same statement made by

49
someone not fond of taking meals at home, will essentially communicate a negative
connotation that homemade food does not taste good. Similarly, if a newspaper
headline states, ‘The White House has announced.’, it is presupposed by the news
writer that readers know that the White House is used to refer to the president of
the USA and when the readers successfully decode the message, it would be an
instance of drawing inference. In one of our previous examples of a teacher asking,
‘Where is Newton sitting?’ and the student’s response that he is out of the class
reflects that the students have successfully inferred that the teacher is asking about
a particular student in the class and not about the scientist. This, also, implies that
for a meaning to be successfully inferred both the speaker as well as the listener
must share the same worldview, otherwise correct inferences may not be drawn.
For instance, an utterance made in an intercultural setting, where people do not
share the same worldview, may lead to not only conversational ambiguity but also
difficulty in inferring the true meaning of an utterance. Studying inference is
important in discourse analysis too as it examines how texts and conversations are
structured and how they function in communication. Inference is vital for
interpreting the connections between different parts of a discourse. It also helps in
understanding functions of discourse markers. Thus, inference is a crucial
mechanism in both pragmatics and discourse analysis as it enables listeners and
readers to derive meaning, establish coherence and understand the deeper
implications and structures of written and oral communication beyond the surface
level.

4.4 Presuppositions and Entailments

In the previous section on inference, we have seen that a speaker or a listener as
well as a writer or a reader must share the same worldview to successfully encode
and decode a message. What a speaker or writer assumes or presupposes is true or
shared by the listener or the reader can be described as a presupposition. Speakers
and writers often design messages by not only adhering to the principle of brevity
and conciseness of the message but also based on large-scale assumptions about
what their listeners or readers already know, therefore, a lot of contextual and
background information is not, unnecessarily, repeated. For instance, in an
utterance like, ‘Have you stopped smoking?’ the speaker makes the presupposition
that once you used to smoke. A newspaper might construct a headline like, ‘The
government is not paying attention to problem X’, with the presupposition that
problem X exists. Communication would not be successful, if a presupposition
made by a speaker or writer is false. In this case, a listener or reader would not be
able to infer the meaning correctly. Though, sometimes presuppositions can be
mistakenly made but most of the time these are appropriate and true.

50
An entailment, on the other hand, is something that can be logically inferred or
drawn from an utterance. For instance, if an utterance states, ‘She will celebrate her
son’s achievement the next week’, the logical entailment would be that she, at least,
has a son. Thus, it can be concluded that effective communication largely depends
on correctly framed presuppositions as well as logically drawn entailments.
Presuppositions and entailments are not only studied in pragmatics bust are also
relevant to the field of discourse analysis. Presuppositions contribute to the
coherence and cohesion of a discourse by linking different parts of the text through
shared assumptions and also uncover implicit information in a text, which is crucial
for a deeper understanding of the discourse. Presuppositions can reveal underlying
power dynamics and ideological stances in discourse while entailments ensure the
logical flow of information in a discourse. They help in analyzing how ideas and
arguments are developed logically.

4.5 Speech Acts

A speech act is defined as an action performed with an utterance in a real
communicative setting. The notion of speech acts is attributed to British
philosopher John Austin (1911- 1960). He postulated that one of the chief functions
of the language is to perform some significant social actions. Austin, initially,
classified speech acts into two kinds: constatives and performatives. A constative
speech acts describes some sort of social reality. For instance, ‘The economic
situation of developing countries is improving day by day’. Constatives have truth
value as they can be assessed and declared to be either true or false. On the other
hand, performatives are quite different as they are intended to achieve interactional
goals in a communicative setting. For instance, when you tell someone, ‘I will help
you no matter what happens’, you are not merely uttering a simple sentence rather
you are performing the speech act of ‘promising’. This type of speech acts can be
realized by performative verbs like ‘requesting’, ordering’, ‘threatening’,
‘advising’ and ‘congratulating, etc. Speech acts are also classified as locutionary,
illocutionary and perlocutionary. A locutionary speech act is performed by merely
articulating an utterance. On the other hand, an illocutionary speech act refers to
the communicative intention of an utterance, whereas a perlocutionary speech act
refers to the impact caused on the listener. For instance, a locutionary speech act is
performed by simply making an utterance like, ‘Can you switch on the light? and
if the listener correctly perceives this utterance as an instance of a request or an
order and not a simple question about his/her ability to switch on the light, then an
illocutionary act is, also, performed as the listener correctly derives the
communicative intention of the speaker. Similarly, if the listener switches on the
light by complying with the request, perlocutionary speech act is, also, performed.
Speech acts are, also, classified as direct and indirect speech acts. A direct speech

51
act is performed when there is no discrepancy in the linguistic form and function of
an utterance. On the other hand, an indirect speech act is performed when a certain
linguistic form is used to have an altogether different function. This is quite evident
from the table given below:

Utterance Structure Function Speech Act

Can you pass the salt? Interrogative Request Indirect
Silence, please! Imperative Command/ Request Indirect
When will you visit us? Interrogative Question Direct

Consider the utterance ‘Can you pass the salt?’ In this example, we are not asking
a question about someone’s ability. We do not normally use this structure as a
question at all. We normally use it to make a request. That is, we are using the
syntactic structure of a question, but with the function of a request. This is an
example of an indirect speech act. If you observe your daily interaction with your
parents, siblings and friends, you will find out that most of the time, it is based on
performing indirect speech acts. For instance, you are in a class and suddenly you
realize that you have left your book at home, just imagine in how many different
ways you will communicate to your class fellow, sitting next to you, to share their
book with you instead of simply asking, ‘Can I share your book?’ Indirect speech
acts are closely associated with what is generally known as ‘politeness’ which
provides us an interesting insight into interpersonal communication. Speech acts
are not only central to pragmatic analysis of languages but are also equally relevant
to discourse analysis as it examines how speech acts are sequenced in interaction
such as question-answer pairs or request-acceptance sequences. It also examines
how participants use speech acts to achieve their interactional goals and manage
relationships. It also focuses on the structure of interactions such as turn-taking and
the organization of conversation. For example, how questions lead to answers and
how statements might lead to agreements or disagreements. Furthermore,
understanding how speech acts link different parts of a discourse contributes to the
overall coherence and cohesion of the text or conversation.

4.6 Politeness
Generally speaking, the term politeness refers to socially and culturally prescribed
norms of polite or civilized behaviour. Individuals within a cultural group are,
normally, aware of the principle of politeness and are expected to follow them to
build solidarity and develop interpersonal relationships. However, within an
interaction, a specific type of politeness is at work which is closely associated with

52
the idea of face which refers to the public self-image of a person. Face can also be
described as an individual’s ‘social self’ which needs to be recognized and
respected by others. Thus, politeness stands for showing awareness of another
person’s face.

People may employ different politeness techniques when engaged in an interaction

depending upon the relationship between them. This relationship can be described
as either socially distant or close to each other. This might be well explained in
terms of power relationships between the participants based on age, gender and
social class, etc. For instance, compare the utterance ‘Excuse me, Mr President, can
you answer a few questions please’ with ‘Hey, Zara, what is going on?’ You might
have noticed that both these utterances demonstrate two different levels of
politeness employed. The former utterance is an instance of being socially distant
to each other as is the case of the president of a state and a journalist while the latter
is an instance of social closeness between two intimate friends. As we have
discussed in the previous section, participants in an interaction may use indirect
speech acts as compared to direct ones while asking for help. For instance, let us
reconsider the utterance ‘Can you pass the salt, please?’ from the politeness
perspective. In this case, the use of the direct speech act ‘Pass the salt’ is an instance
of an order which is against the principle of politeness. Therefore, these are usually
avoided. The speech acts which threaten another person’s face are termed as face-
threatening speech acts like orders, warnings, etc. On the other hand, face-saving
speech acts like requests, etc. reveal awareness of the politeness principle. Thus,
politeness, also, stands for enhancing the use of face-saving speech acts and
reducing the use of face-threatening speech acts. Politeness strategies vary in
intercultural settings and may have variations in cross-cultural situations. A critical
investigation of politeness theory is central to the analysis of discourse as it
provides insights into how speakers manage social relationships and mitigate face-
threatening acts in communication. Discourse analysis benefits from understanding
politeness strategies to uncover the underlying social dynamics in discourse.
Politeness strategies often reflect power relations in discourse. For instance, a
subordinate might use more elaborate politeness strategies when addressing a
superior to show respect and mitigate the imposition. Analyzing these strategies
reveals underlying power structures and social hierarchies.

4.7 Cooperative Principle

The cooperative principle is attributed to the linguistic philosopher Paul Grice who
proposed that conversations are, generally, cooperative in nature which implies that
participants involved in a conversational exchange cooperate with each other to

53
make their conversation meaningful and result oriented. Grice’s cooperative
principle states, “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” (Grice, 1975: 45). This principle is often explained in
terms of four maxims, labelled as Gricean maxims’ which are described as under:
i. The quantity maxim: Make your conversational contribution as informative
as it is required but neither more nor less than required.
ii. The quality maxim: Your conversational contribution should be true and
based on facts. Do not say something which you believe is either false or you
do not have sufficient evidence to support it.
iii. The relation maxim: Make your conversational contribution relevant to the
topic or agenda of discussion.
iv. The manner maxim: Make your conversational contribution clear, precise
and orderly. Avoid obscurity of expression.

In a real-life interaction, interlocutors, often, adhere to the prescriptive norms of

cooperative principle and its underlying assumptions. However, it is also
commonly observed that participants do not seem to be paying attention to the
maxims of quality, quantity, relevance or manner but even then their
communicative intentions are clearly revealed to others. This is partly because of
the reason that people believe that conversation contributions are cooperative and
they know that language is ‘used’ in this way in the community. Discourse analysts
often investigate instances of naturally occurring talks or institutionalized
conversations from the perspective of cooperation to highlight its intercultural
variations.

Discourse analysis and pragmatics provide a comprehensive and well-structured

framework for studying language in use to enhance our understanding of how
meaning is constructed, negotiated and conveyed in communication. Discourse
analysis investigates patterns in language production and interpretation in various
contexts, while pragmatics provides insights into how speakers' intentions and
social norms influence and shape communication. Integration of theoretical
perspectives presented by theorists in both fields can reveal invaluable insights into
how language both constructs and reflects social realities and human behaviour.

54
 SUMMARY POINTS

i. The word pragmatic is etymologically derived from the Greek word pragma,
meaning ‘deed’.
ii. Technically speaking, pragmatics, as a field of critical inquiry, is interested in
investigating how language is used to do things and mean things in real-life
situations.
iii. Furthermore, pragmatics examines the ways context contributes to the
development of the meaning of words, phrases and utterances in real-life
communicative settings.
iv. It also focuses on how speakers and writers rely heavily on the assumption of
‘shared knowledge’ and communicate more than actually expressed by their
words, phrases and sentences.
v. Discourse analysts are interested in examining ‘language above the sentence
level’ as well as ‘language in use’.
vi. Pragmatics, also, investigates real language use in real-life situations and the
way people encode and decode the meaning of their social interactions.
vii. Certain discourse genres are essentially grounded in their context and the
construction and transmission of meaning cannot be fully realized without
subjecting the text into its milieu. Literary, media and political discourse are
prototypes of such genres.
viii. Context stands for the larger socio-cultural context or knowledge of the social
world which is reflected through societal values, cultural practices, political
philosophies and socio-psychological factors influencing communication.
ix. Thus, the critical relevance and importance of context in the processes of
encoding and decoding meaning is the central focus of scholarly investigation
in both Pragmatics and discourse analysis as language use is not only
grounded in its context but also informed by its context.
x. Reference is a linguistic term which is defined as the act of using language to
refer to the entities in the context.
xi. Thus, reference is an act in which a speaker or a writer uses linguistic forms
to enable the listener or reader to identify something in the real world.

55
xii. An inference is defined as additional information used by the listener or a
reader to create a connection between what is generally stated by the words
used by a speaker or a writer and what is actually communicated.
xiii. Face can also be described as an individual’s ‘social self’ which needs to be
recognized and respected by others. Thus, politeness stands for showing
awareness of another person’s face.
xiv. Grice’s cooperative principle states, “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” (Grice, 1975: 45).
xv. Discourse analysts often investigate instances of naturally occurring talks or
institutionalized conversations from the perspective of cooperation to
highlight its intercultural variations.

SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

1. In what ways do discourse analysis and pragmatics complement each other in

exploring the dynamics of language in social contexts
2. What do you understand by the term ‘implied meaning’? Demonstrate how
implied meaning can be different from the stated meaning with some model
examples. Does intercultural ambiguity arise out of complexity in decoding
the intended meaning?
3. What is contextual sensibility? Discuss the significance of context in the study
of meaning. Also, discuss various types of context.
4. Differentiate between referring expressions and referents with the help of
examples. How are these related to deictic expressions?
5. Apply Grice’s cooperative principle on a selected chunk of media
conversation and demonstrate how the selected conversation is cooperative in
nature.

56
Unit–5

CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

Written by: Dr Rashida Imran

Reviewed by: Prof Dr Sarwet Rasul

57
 CONTENTS
Page #
Overview .......................................................................................................... 59

Objectives ......................................................................................................... 59

5.1 Conversation Analysis ............................................................................ 60

5.2 Turn Taking ............................................................................................. 63

5.3 Methodological Strengths of Conversation Analysis ............................. 65

5.4 Limitations of Conversation Analysis .................................................... 67

Summary Points ............................................................................................... 68

Self-Assessment Questions .............................................................................. 70

58
 OVERVIEW

This unit deals with conversation analysis as a key approach to studying social
interactions. The chapter highlights its distinctive features which make it an
influential approach within the range of approaches to the analysis of spoken
discourse. Special attention has been paid to naturally occurring talk as well as
institutionalized conversations. Furthermore, the methodology of conversation
analysis is rigorously presented. Conversation openings and closing have also been
discussed. Moreover, conversational aspect of turn-taking is also considered in
greater detail.

OBJECTIVES

After reading this unit, you will be able to: -

i. give background to the development of the approach

ii. critically review the salient aspects of conversation analysis

iii. discuss the methodology of conversation analysis

iv. highlight strengths and limitations of conversation analysis

v. explain the element of turn-taking

59
One of the most significant defining features of our social life is our constant need
to use language, a form of social practice, to interact with people to perform various
functions. We deal with people to manage a wide range of affairs on a daily basis.
We interact with the people to build, sustain and strengthen our social relations. We
are involved in conversations to instruct and guide people to achieve certain
communicative and non-communicative objectives. It is a common observation that
people are often engaged in conversations to greet, congratulate, advise, counsel,
teach, apologize, motivate, encourage and convince people to act or behave in a
certain way. We often feel the need to share our feelings, thoughts and ideas with
the people around us either in the personal or professional domain of our life. We
are often involved in conversations to either share our success stories or relate our
disappointments with our near and dear ones. Many times, we find ourselves
involved in discussions related to the political and economic state of affairs of our
country. All these activities are essentially materialized in conversations of varying
lengths depending upon their agenda and setting. The role of conversations is so
crucial to our existence that it seems our life is but a series of conversations.

5.1 Conversation Analysis

Conversation Analysis (CA) is an important approach within the broader field of
discourse analysis which rigorously and systematically analyzes naturally
occurring talks and institutionalized conversations. Sociologists Harvey Sacks,
Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson are the chief proponents of this approach
who developed it in the 1960s and 1970s, since then the field is constantly
expanding and growing and it has gained much prominence as the centralized
approach to studying spoken interactions.

As stated earlier, CA primarily deals with spoken discourses which implies that a
discourse analyst working within the theoretical approach and methodological
design of conversation analysis is often interested in analyzing spoken discourse
and is less likely intrigued by written discourse (s). CA, as an approach to spoken
discourse, is not merely restricted to the study of conversation only but is equally
suitable and applied to naturally occurring talk in professional domain and
workplace settings which are often labelled as ‘institutionalized talk’. There is a
growing tendency to apply CA to political speeches as well as a wide range of
media genres including but not limited to interviews, talk shows, focused groups
and panel discussions, etc. Thus, it becomes evident that CA analyzes spoken data
of various kinds including media discourses.

CA is primarily interested in naturally occurring talk which is not scripted and

which is a product of fluid interaction between the interlocutors. As mentioned

60
earlier, CA is developed to analyze talk rather than written texts. However, a
conversation analyst may like to transcribe talk into the written form by following
transcription conventions for a more detailed and objective analysis. Conversations
never happen in a social vacuum and essentially require human participants who
can initiate and close a conversation based on any agenda of mutual interest. These
agendas may range from personal to political. Conversations normally involve two
or more than two participants as opposed to a monologue and/or a soliloquy.

CA closely observes sequential patterns of the conversation and the central concern
of the approach is the element of turn-taking. As described earlier, conversations
are different from monologues in the sense that conversations involve two or more
participants who take turns to achieve the mutual goal of interaction. Analysis of
turn-taking is based on observable data which may provide evidence of how
participants contribute to making their conversations ongoing and successful to
achieve an already established mutual goal. CA practitioners are interested in any
aspect of conversation which is relevant to understanding surface and deeper
structure of conversation. CA practitioners are also interested in investigating how
participants make sense of the intended meaning of an utterance in the
conversations. Moreover, besides turn-taking, CA practitioners are interested in
investigating general mechanism of asking and answering questions in an ordered
talk. They may also investigate openings and closings of conversations as well as
how topical shift is managed by the participants.

CA exhibits a marked preference for observable sequential patterns of

conversation. Thus, in its essence, CA is an objective investigation of the ‘talk’
itself without referring to any element which is external to the conversation and
which is not made relevant by the participants themselves. In this way, CA is
strikingly different from other approaches to discourse analysis which take into
consideration the context of an utterance in understanding the process of encoding
and decoding its meaning. Therefore, CA is remarkably a ‘data-centered’ approach
and a conversation analyst does not consider any factor which is not intrinsically
related to the talk and is an external element.

CA, in short, is an objective analysis of the talk itself just like a biologist analyzes
a living organism under the microscope without taking into consideration any of
the factors which create or impact the external environment of the living organism.
On a similar pattern, a CA practitioner would not be interested in considering the
societal roles and relationships of the participants, their ethnic or linguistic
identities, their belief system, their livid experiences or approaches to various issues
of social, cultural or political relevance and hence not interested to investigate the
relationship of these external factors with the talk itself. CA approach is often

61
criticized and challenged on these grounds for not examining talk holistically
because these external factors may have a significant impact on the linguistic
behaviour of the participants during the conversation.

However, we cannot draw a generalization that a CA practitioner would never

consider these external factors in any circumstances. On the contrary, these external
factors may be considered relevant and may be appropriate in the analysis of
conversation if they are signaled and made relevant by the participants themselves.
Otherwise, they are totally disregarded and a conversation analyst would only focus
on the observable data of the conversation only.

This very idea of disregarding any external elements to conversation because the
participants have not made them relevant finds its reflection in another approach to
qualitative inquiry labelled as ‘ethnomethodology’. The proponents of this approach
believe that social structure or social order must be studied based on concrete actions
of people rather than finding explanations in abstract theoretical paradigms.

This insistence of CA practitioners on talk itself has been the subject of much
critical discussion and heated debate primarily focusing on the idea of ‘power in
discourse’. For instance, some feminist scholars working within the field of CA
have raised serious concerns regarding the methodology of the approach. The
challenge the objectivity of CA on the grounds that an ongoing interaction which
involves both sexes is quite different from the conversation having participants of
the same sex only. It is generally observed that men tend to dominate conversations
involving both sexes. In this case, men will take more turns as compared to women.
Moreover, they will exercise more authority in managing topical shifts as compared
to women. Women on the other are more likely involved in the ‘labour’ of keeping
interaction ongoing. This gender dichotomy in conversation is, clearly, reflective
of a larger social order and cultural assumptions of appropriate gender behaviour.
Therefore, this external social reality must be considered and made relevant to the
analysis of conversation data. However, CA practitioners dismiss this observation
because gender binaries will only be included in the analysis of data, if participants
make it relevant in their conversational contributions. If this is not the case, it is not
considered in the analysis of the talk.

CA’s insistence on observable data of talk while eliminating any abstract external
influences also reveals its spirit of empiricism which focuses on evidence which
can be verified. This, CA relies only on the talk itself with an emphasis on analyzing
the talk more closely to reach some definite conclusion about its structure and
process of turn-taking. An interesting analogy can be drawn between the way an
analyst analyses a stretch of talk within the framework of CA and a microbiologist

62
analyzing a unicellular organism under the microscope, both methods would reveal
certain evidence which was not observable without following the techniques of
objective and empirical analysis.

5.2 Turn Taking

As discussed earlier, CA exclusively focuses on the dynamics of talk in interaction
and its various features. Turn-taking is one such aspect of conversation which has
been subjected to fine-grained analysis by the CA practitioners and it has led to
certain findings which may appear to be too obvious and common sensical.
However, on a closer investigation, they may turn out to be less obvious than they
initially seemed to be. Turn-taking is one such aspect of naturally occurring talk
which is assumed to be so obvious that it can be ‘sensed’ by an ordinary observer
and an expert analyst alike.

Conversations involve human participants who are required to take turns to make
the conversation achieve its communicative agenda. However, turn-taking is not a
haphazard activity, rather it is managed in a particular way. Turn-taking is
organized in a principled way and typically it ‘belongs’ to one speaker at a given
point during a conversation which implies that one speaker speaks and contributes
to conversation. According to the turn-taking conventions, multiple speakers will
not take simultaneous turns at a time and will not talk together. Similarly, there will
not be longer periods when nobody speaks at all. However, there can be some
occasional pauses or moments of silence which are very customary of naturally
occurring talk but when they grow longer and sound awkward, a participant may
take the turn and thus, conversation goes on. Similarly, simultaneous speech may
occur during a conversation but that is considered problematic and not desirable
and efforts are made to repair the damage caused to ongoing conversations. During
this stage, one speaker may win the floor and continue speaking while others
become silent and wait for their turns at the appropriate moment. Thus, winning
and holding the floor is a constant process and is constantly negotiated and
renegotiated during a conversation.

Interestingly, CA contends that talk is ‘locally managed’ which entails that

conversations are not governed by some pre-established principles which make it
binding on the participants to follow certain conventions or to act and perform in a
certain way, rather its patterns, features and organization naturally emerge from
what participants do during the course of a conversation. Thus, CA’s findings are,
in fact, a detailed description of what happens in a conversation and how talk is
managed by the participants. It would not be an exaggeration to claim that CA is
more interested in the intriguing questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ and is less interested

63
in ‘what’ of conversational features. Nevertheless, ‘how’ and ‘why’ aspects cannot
be fully grasped without bringing ‘what’ into the analysis bracket. CA is interested
in finding out how the participants manage to implement the aspect of turn-taking
enabling the conversation to proceed in an orderly and organized manner and not
in a disorganized and disorderly fashion. It is interesting to find out that
conversationalists are not necessarily conscious of the fact that they are following
certain conventions of taking turns and they take their ability to participate in a
conversation for granted.

Making explicit what ordinary conversationalists take for granted is precisely what
CA sets out to achieve. There might be some intercultural variations in turn- taking
but more or less a regular pattern is at work in almost all kinds of social interactions.
How do participants behave to produce such regularities and after asking other
similar questions, Harvey Sacks proposed a model of conversationalists’ behaviour
which was a joint enterprise with his colleagues, Emanuel Schegloff and Gail
Jefferson (Sacks et al. 1974). The model presents the idea that the participants are
aware of the fact that a turn consists of one or more ‘turn constructional units’ which
may be described as an utterance in spoken discourse comprising a phrase, clause or
sentence. Turn constructional unit is followed by ‘turn transition relevance place’
where speaker change may occur. However, this change is not haphazard but orderly,
as the model suggests through its second element of turn-taking. The model proposes
that participants follow a certain mechanism of allocating turn to the next speaker
when transitioning in turn-taking is required. Sacks et al. (1974) suggest not all the
participants have an equal chance to take the next turn to gain floor, rather there is a
set of rules which are reproduced here in the summarized form as under:
i. The current speaker selects the next speaker by either inviting him/her to
participate and/or by signaling through any nonverbal cue like gaze, etc.
ii. If the current speaker does not nominate anyone to take the turn, whoever
speaks first takes the turn and holds the floor. In this case, there is a possibility
of simultaneous speech which is naturally resolved and at times labelled as
overlapping speech. Some cases of overlapping speech arise out of
miscalculation of the next speaker that the completion point has reached but it
may also signal interruption which reflects hostility by denying the current
speaker his/her legitimate right to speak.
iii. The current speaker may reach a completion point and continue, if neither of
the previous two scenarios takes place. This mechanism of allocating turns will
be repeated when the ‘turn transition relevance place’ occurs again during the
conversation. However, naturally occurring talk, at times, is not as smooth in
turn-taking as projected by the model. We may come across some irregular
patterns in turn-taking depending upon the role and power relations of the
participants, setting, agenda, topical constraints, etc.

64
Jennifer Coates (1996) argues that simultaneous speech does not always signal
either miscalculation of completion point or hostile interruption to gain the floor,
rather it serves some supportive function as is the case between women friends who
may endorse each other’s point of view or express solidarity, etc. Cameron (1997)
highlights this supportive function prevalent in the conversational exchange
between young men and friends too. Furthermore, Carole Edelsky (1981) provides
evidence that supportive simultaneous speech can also occur in institutional
contexts. These observations are quite contrary to the model proposed by Sacks
et.al (1974) which projects one speaker at a time as a fundamental requirement and
there is no scope for simultaneous speech which is neither an error nor a violation
but rather a normal feature of certain kinds of talks in certain settings. There might
be intercultural variations too in the mechanism of turn-taking. Therefore, a CA
analyst must be attentive to the minute details of the data being analyzed and to the
patterns that appear to be salient to participants themselves.

CA investigates another important feature of turn-taking which is labelled as adjacency

pairs which refer to the sequential relationship between two related utterances, where
the second turn is typically produced in response to the first. Instances of adjacency
pairs include questions and answers, greetings and responses, and requests and granting
or denial of those requests. CA has provided detailed insights into the structural and
sequential organization of adjacency pairs, highlighting how participants in
conversation collaboratively shape and manage interaction.

Repair is another important concept within CA. It refers to the mechanisms through
which participants address problems or difficulties that arise during conversation.
When communication breakdowns occur, participants engage in repair processes
to clarify misunderstandings, correct errors, or seek clarification. CA research has
shown that repair is a routine and systematic feature of conversation, with various
strategies employed to resolve problems and maintain the flow of interaction.

5.3 Methodological Strengths of Conversation Analysis

As discussed earlier, CA has greatly contributed to our understanding of the
structure, organization and mechanism of turn-taking of a naturally occurring talk.
It reveals underlying patterns and complexities which govern talk and provides
fine-grained information about the interactional processes which shape our
communication. CA practitioners have enabled us to revisit our traditional
assumptions about conversations of different domains and highlighted the complex,
fluid and dynamic nature of naturally occurring talk. The foremost strength of CA
lies in its spirit of empiricism. It disregards any element which is external to the
talk and conducts a micro-analytic analysis of transcribed data based on audio-

65
video recording of naturally occurring talk. Its roots are firmly grounded in
empirical research with an emphasis on authenticating research findings. CA’s
insistence on ‘observable data’ provides a solid basis for examining the intricacies
involved in social interactions through verifiable research findings.

Generally speaking, the field of discourse analysis involves transcription of audio

or video recorded texts for a detailed analysis, for instance, a critical discourse
analyst may transcribe an instance of media discourse to understand how ideology
is embedded in its discourse. Similarly, a discourse analyst may transcribe
electronic media advertisements to understand how language is used to make its
discourse powerful, potent and persuasive. Thus, CA shows a marked preference
for detailed transcription and it is one of the most fundamental requirements for
systematic and rigorous implementation of its methodology. CA further emphasizes
that detailed transcription should not only capture linguistic data including false
starts, hesitation, pauses, overlapping talk, tone, pitch and intonation but also
paralinguistic features of the language. Exhaustive transcription allows for a fine-
grained investigation of intricacies involved in interactional processes.

As described earlier, CA’s methodology is very systematic which lends it technical

soundness. Hence, CA is a process-oriented approach which applies all procedural
steps in a very organized and orderly manner while studying conversations.
Analysts investigate peculiar features, sequential patterns, mechanisms of turn-
taking, and regularities in the structural organization of talk in interaction to
understand the processes of constructing and negotiating meaning. By following
systematic CA methodology, an analyst may lead to research findings which are
not only authentic but also replicable.

CA was, initially, developed to analyze institutionalized conversations which are

governed by asymmetrical power relationships between the interlocutors. For
instance, a courtroom conversation between a judge and an accused, a conversation
taking place at a clinic between a doctor and a patient as well as a classroom
conversation between a teacher and students. However, CA primarily focuses on
naturally occurring talk which is neither scripted nor rehearsed. Naturally occurring
talk or talk in naturalistic settings represents our societal interactions and captures
them in their entirety as compared to institutionalized conversations which are
governed by power dynamics. Hence, CA’s marked preference for everyday talk
provides us interesting insights into the workings of our social interactions which
shape our communication. The richness of real-life data or ordinary conversations
not only highlights the complexity of real-life interactions but also provides
revealing insights into communicative strategies adopted by the interlocuters
during the interactional process. CA’s insistence on capturing real-life data adds to
the validity and reliability of research findings.

66
The applicability of the CA approach in a range of disciplines highlights its
theoretical and methodological significance. CA as a research method is frequently
used in fields like linguistics, discourse studies, sociolinguistics, communication
studies, anthropology, sociology and clinical psychology, etc. The usefulness of
CA in such a diverse range of academic disciplines further intensifies the idea of
its technical soundness. CA’s findings have greatly impacted and influenced
interdisciplinary research.

As discussed earlier, owing to its interdisciplinary relevance, the field of CA is

constantly growing and expanding. Theoretical and methodological insights gained
by CA practitioners from these interdisciplinary fields have, further, contributed to
the technical soundness of its methods of data collection, transcription,
presentation, analysis and interpretation. All these technical advancements have,
further, established CA as a credible approach to research by enhancing the validity
and reliability of its findings.

CA is embedded in the qualitative research approach of ethnomethodology which

investigates everyday reality and how people produce reality through their
representations of self and others during interaction. Conversation analysts focus
specifically on the dynamics of talk to understand how people make sense of
intended meanings during their social interactions. This theoretical framework
allows CA to delve into the social construction of reality through conversation,
uncovering the underlying social actions, norms, and practices that shape
communication.

5.4 Limitations of Conversation Analysis

Conversation analysis (CA) is a valuable and widely recognized approach to
studying conversation, yet it is not free of certain shortcomings. Some of the key
limitations of CA include its exclusion of broader socio-cultural background which
influences and shapes communication and communicative practices. If this aspect
of conversation is taken into consideration, it may enhance our understanding of
the factors which govern communication. Furthermore, CA focuses on a very small
sample size to investigate conversation owing to its time-consuming methodology
of transcription and detailed analysis but it fails to account for the variations caused
by diverse socio-cultural backgrounds. Thus, findings obtained through CA may be
transferable but not generalizable. Moreover, different CA practitioners may select
different segments of conversation for analysis. Their subjective choices may lead
to different interpretations of the same data which may be problematic in
establishing CA as an objective approach. Similarly, CA practitioners are required
to obtain ‘informed consent’ to record conversations. The presence of an observer
may alter and influence participants’ linguistic behaviour as well as interactional

67
practices leading to research findings which may not fully represent spontaneous
conversations occurring in natural settings. To counter this challenge, on the other
hand, if conversations are recorded without seeking informed consent of the
participants involved then it raises serious ethical concerns.

CA as a field continues to evolve, adapting to new technologies and exploring

emerging areas of inquiry, making it a vital and dynamic area of research within
sociolinguistics and related disciplines. It remains a significant and influential
method for studying the complexities of conversation, offering valuable insights
into the social and interactional processes that shape human communication.

SUMMARY POINTS

i. One of the most significant defining features of our social life is our constant
need to use language, a form of social practice, to interact with people to
perform various functions.

ii. We interact with the people to build, sustain and strengthen our social
relations. It is a common observation that people are often engaged in
conversations to greet, congratulate, advise, counsel, teach, apologize,
motivate, encourage and convince people to act or behave in a certain way.

iii. Sociologists Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson are the
chief proponents of this approach who developed it in the 1960s and 1970s
and since then the field is constantly expanding and growing and it has gained
much prominence as the centralized approach to studying spoken interactions.

iv. CA closely observes sequential patterns of the conversation and the central
concern of the approach is the element of turn-taking.

v. CA is remarkably a data-centered’ approach and a conversation analyst does

not consider any factor which is not intrinsically related to the talk and is an
external element.

vi. This very idea of disregarding any external elements to conversation on the
grounds that the participants have not made them relevant finds its reflection
in another approach to qualitative inquiry labelled as ‘ethnomethodology’.

vii. CA’s insistence on observable data of talk while eliminating any abstract
external influences also reveals its spirit of empiricism which focuses on
evidence which can be verified.

68
viii. Making explicit what ordinary conversationalists take for granted is precisely
what CA sets out to achieve.

ix. CA has greatly contributed to our understanding of the structure, organization

and mechanism of turn-taking of a naturally occurring talk.

x. It reveals underlying patterns and complexities which govern talk and

provides fine-grained information about the interactional processes which
shape our communication.

xi. The foremost strength of CA lies in its spirit of empiricism. It disregards any
element which is external to the talk and conducts a micro-analytic analysis
of transcribed data based on audio-video recording of naturally occurring talk.

xii. CA’s insistence on ‘observable data’ provides a solid basis for examining the
intricacies involved in social interactions through verifiable research findings.

xiii. Turn-taking is one such aspect of conversation which has been subjected to
fine-grained analysis by the CA practitioners and it has led to certain findings
which may appear to be too obvious and common sensical.

xiv. Jennifer Coates (1996) argues that simultaneous speech does not always
signal either miscalculation of completion point or hostile interruption to gain
the floor, rather it serves some supportive function as is the case between
women friends who may endorse each other’s point of view or express
solidarity, etc.

xv. Some of the key limitations of CA include its exclusion of broader socio-
cultural background which influences and shapes communication and
communicative practices.

69
 SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

1. What are the main principles and methodologies used in conversation analysis
to study the structure and organization of naturally occurring conversations,
and how does this approach contribute to our understanding of communication
patterns?

2. How do participants in a conversation manage and negotiate turn-taking, and

what are the factors that influence the smooth flow of interactions in different
cultural and social contexts?

3. Explain the concept of adjacency pairs in conversation analysis and provide

examples of how these sequential patterns impact the meaning and coherence
of conversations.

4. What are the advantages and strengths of using conversation analysis as a

methodological tool in social science research, and how does it offer unique
insights into the dynamics of everyday communication?

5. What are some common criticisms or limitations of conversation analysis as

an approach, and how do researchers address these concerns to ensure the
validity and reliability of their findings?

70
Unit–6

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Written by: Dr Rashida Imran

Reviewed by: Prof Dr Sarwet Rasul

71
 CONTENTS
Page #
Overview .................................................................................................. 73

Objectives ................................................................................................ 73

6.1 Discourse in CDA ............................................................................ 76

6.2 Methodological Strengths of CDA .................................................. 80

6.3 Criticism of CDA ............................................................................. 81

Summary Points ....................................................................................... 82

Self-Assessment Questions ...................................................................... 84

72
 OVERVIEW

The unit deals with exploring theoretical perspectives and methodological designs
of one of the most influential research approaches namely Critical Discourse
Analysis. CDA’s theorization of discourse has been extensively discussed by
grounding it in the works of its key practitioners. Methodological strengths and
limitations of CDA have also been established in concrete terms.

OBJECTIVES

After reading this unit, you will be able to: -

i. Describe the defining features of Critical Discourse Analysis

ii. determine the usefulness of CDA in studying spoken and written discourses

iii. critically review CDA’s methodology

iv. analyse strengths of CDA

v. evaluate CDA as a grand narrative

vi. highlight limitations of its methodology

73
Critical Discourse Analysis, henceforth CDA, is neither a monolithic theoretical
perspective nor a unified methodological design but a complex field of critical inquiry
which offers a diverse range of approaches within post-positivist interpretative research
paradigm to analyze complex relationships between language, power and ideology in
written or spoken discourses of varied nature. van Dijk (2015), a prominent theorist,
key practitioner and founding member of the field, describes CDA thus, ‘Critical
Discourse Analysis (CDA) is discourse analytical research that primarily studies the
way social-power abuse and inequality are enacted, reproduced, legitimated, and
resisted by text and talk in the social and political context’ (p.466).

CDA is, therefore, principally driven by an emancipatory agenda of critiquing and

challenging power abuse, represented explicitly and implicitly, in a wide range of
discourses. According to Wodak (2006), one of the leading and key practitioners of
the field, ‘CDA [is] fundamentally interested in analyzing opaque as well as
transparent structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and
control when these are manifested in language. In other words, CDA aims to
critically investigate social inequality as it is expressed, constituted, and legitimized
by language use’ (p. 53). Therefore, van Dijk (1993) argues that the main purpose
of CDA is to identify and highlight social inequalities. He, also, articulated a
guiding perspective for critical discourse analysts which states:
Unlike other discourse analysts, critical discourse analysts (should) take an
explicit sociopolitical stance: they spell out their point of view, perspective,
principles and aims, both within their discipline and within society at
large...Their perspective, if possible, is that of those who suffer the most from
dominance and inequality. (p. 253-254)

This theoretical view of van Dijk is reflective of CDA’s central focus of critical
investigation of discourses to highlight the perspective of silenced voices subjected
to all forms of social, cultural and political power abuse, discrimination and
exploitation. Viewed in this sense, CDA has a politically vested agenda and is
representative of the underprivileged and marginalized communities. CDA is
grounded in some unique principles, Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 271- 280)
describe some of these as under:
i. CDA addresses social problems.
ii. Power relations are discursive.
iii. Discourse constitutes society and culture.
iv. Discourse does ideological work.
v. Discourse is historical.
vi. The link between text and society is mediated.
vii. Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory
viii. Discourse is a form of social action.

74
One widespread general misunderstanding about CDA is that it is a special method
of doing discourse analysis. However, there is no such an all-purpose method of
discourse analysis which can address various issues and research problems.
Furthermore, CDA methods of discourse studies are cross -disciplinary in nature.
Therefore, other relevant methods in the humanities and social sciences may be
used besides CDA to enhance the validity and reliability of the findings. CDA is a
specific perspective within the critical research on discourse which has the
following general features, among others:
i. CDA addresses social problems and political issues rather than simply
studying discourse structures without subjecting them to their social and
political contexts.
ii. The critical analysis of social problems is generally multidisciplinary.
iii. CDA does not simply describe discourse structures, it explains them in terms
of properties of social interaction and especially social structure.

CDA, more specifically, focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm,
legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations of power abuse (dominance) in society
(van Dijk, 2015: 467). CDA is not only valued owing to its methodological
approaches for the analysis of complex relationships between language, power and
ideology but is acknowledged as an important philosophical paradigm, as claimed
by Wood & Kroger (2000):
[Critical] discourse analysis is not only about method; it is also a perspective
on the nature of language and its relationship to the central issues of the social
sciences. More specifically, we see discourse analysis as a related collection
of approaches to discourse, approaches that entail not only practices of data
collection and analysis but also a set of metatheoretical and theoretical
assumptions and a body of research claims and studies (Wood & Kroger,
2000: x).

As described earlier, the field of CDA is highly diverse theoretically,

methodologically and analytically as compared to other approaches to social
research. The nature and objectives of particular research serve as the critical
criterion in determining which specific approach of CDA is applicable in a
particular context, as van Dijk (2015) asserts:

Since CDA is not a specific direction of research, it does not have a unitary theoretical
framework… there are many types of CDA, and these may be theoretically and
analytically quite diverse…Thus, the typical vocabulary of many scholars in CDA will
feature such notions as power, dominance, hegemony, ideology, class, gender, race,
discrimination, interests, reproduction, institutions, social structure, and social order,
besides the more familiar discourse analytical notions. (p. 468).

75
Theoretical and critical perspectives given by prominent scholars establish CDA as
an instance of analytical activism with an explicit political agenda of highlighting
the dominated, silenced and marginalized voices and challenging social inequality
and power abuse in any of its latent or manifest forms. However, this goal of social
liberation cannot be achieved until it is contextualized in the broader social
spectrum, as Wodak (1996), cited in (Titscher et al, 2000: 146) argues that
discourse analysis is, ‘interpretative and explanatory in nature. Critical analysis
implies a systematic methodology and a relationship between the text and its social
conditions, ideologies and power relations to reveal its meaning.’ However, this
meaning cannot be understood in isolation without exposing the text to its context.
The idea of context is of critical relevance and is treated significantly in the process
of discourse analysis. Angermuller (2014) refers to the same point of view when he
observes:
The discourse analytical trends of the 1950s and 1960s define as the context
of a sentence mostly the neighbouring sentences whose combination forms a
‘discourse’ (that is text). Since the 1970s, ‘extra–linguistic’ aspects (that is
context) have also entered the analysis. (p.22)

Therefore, it is evident that context captures both linguistic co-text as well as extra-
linguistic aspects to successfully interpret the meaning of a text. Therefore, CDA
serves to be the most appropriate research design for analyzing language and its
interrelatedness with the socially and discursively constructed reality. CDA also
takes into consideration multiple and intersecting ‘voices’ which populate a text.
Kress (1995) makes an important observation in this regard:
Texts are the sites of the emergence of complex of social meanings, produced
in the particular history of the situation of production, that record in partial
ways the histories of both the participants in the production of the text and of
the institutions that are ‘invoked’ or brought into play, indeed a partial history
of the language and of the social system, a partiality due to the structuring of
relations of power of the participants. (Kress, 1995:122)

CDA is an ever-growing and expanding field of research with a wide range of

theoretical and methodological practices largely determined by the research
objectives and theoretical perspectives of the analyst related to the issue under
investigation.

6.1 Discourse in CDA

The term ‘discourse’ is one of the most deliberated terms in the broader field of
discourse analysis. The nature and meaning of the term ‘discourse’ have been
critically investigated by a number of key theorists and discourse analysts working

76
within the domain of the philosophical and theoretical paradigm of CDA. Hence,
their critical inquiry has led to the creation of a vast array of defining features of
discourse, the multiplicity of meanings of discourse in varying contexts and its
structuralist and formalist features.

Without the constitutive property of discourse; we would not have been able to
comprehend the complex nature of social life and various ideologies influencing
our societal structures and our worldview. It is often argued that discourse has a
dualistic function; it both constructs as well as reflects reality. Viewed in this sense,
‘[Discourse is] a group of statements which provides a language for talking about
a topic and a way of producing a particular kind of knowledge about a topic. Thus,
the term refers both to the production of knowledge through language and
representations and the way that knowledge is institutionalized, shaping social
practices and setting new practices into play (du Gay, 1996, p. 43).

Fairclough and Wodak (1997), the two most influential figures within the field of
CDA, are most frequently acknowledged in defining discourse and describing its
features in a very comprehensive way. Their definition is largely cited in the field:
CDA sees discourse – language use in speech and writing – as a form of
‘social practice’ Describing discourse as social practice implies a dialectical
relationship between a particular discursive event and the situation(s),
institution(s) and social structure(s), which frame it: The discursive event is
shaped by them, but it also shapes them. That is, discourse is socially
constitutive as well as socially conditioned – it constitutes situations, objects
of knowledge, and the social identities of and relationships between people
and groups of people. It is constitutive both in the sense that it helps to sustain
and reproduce the social status quo and in the sense that it contributes to
transforming it. Since discourse is so socially consequential, it gives rise to
important issues of power. Discursive practices may have major ideological
effects – that is, they can help produce and reproduce unequal power relations
between (for instance) social classes, women and men, and ethnic/cultural
majorities and minorities through the ways in which they represent things and
position people. (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997: 258)

Discourse is not only socially constitutive but it is also socially conditioned. It

constitutes various ideologies, reproduces and sustains them but at the same time,
it transforms them. For instance, the critical notion of islamophobia is constituted
and conditioned by the discourses produced about it but debunking of the notion is
also grounded in discourse. Many competing discourses produced by Islamic
scholars and in particular by political leaders have a transforming impact. For
instance, Imran Khan’s speech at the United Nations was an attempt to deconstruct
this ideology and show how it is inherently discriminatory. Though discourses are

77
materialized and realized through texts, they are broader than the texts and include
the larger social and cultural structure and practices that surround and inform their
production and consumption (Fairclough, 1992; Philips & Hardy, 1997). Discourse
as a political practice establishes, sustains and reinforces power relations, and the
collective entities (classes, blocs, communities, groups) between which power
relations sustain. Discourse as an ideological practice constitutes, naturalizes,
sustains and changes significations of the world from diverse positions in power
relations. (Fairclough, 1992: 67)

As already described, the notion of discourse and text has been subjected to a
proliferated number of uses in various contexts, for instance, Lupton (1992) defines
discourse as ‘a group of ideas or patterned way of thinking which can be identified
in textual and verbal communications and can also be located in wider social
structures’ (p. 145). Sunderland (2004)’s conceptualization of discourse is, also,
quite similar in nature to that of Lupton (1992)’s description. She selected suitable
stretches of discourse from fiction which were reflective of a gendered ideology
prevalent in the wider socio-cultural context as ‘linguistic traces’. From the
discussion made so far, it is evident that the term discourse has multiple meanings
in varying contexts. Therefore, a critical discourse analyst must consider varied
definitions of discourse in order to develop a holistic understanding of the term and
appropriate treatment of the term in research.

CDA practitioners chiefly analyze the discourses produced by various institutions

of a society. For instance, media discourse is one of the most suitable sites for a
CDA analyst as it not only shapes the perception of its consumers but is, also,
considered to be a powerful institution for ideological effect. Therefore, CDA
practitioners take an explicit socio-political stance and highlight the perspective of
those who suffer the most from dominance and social inequality.

CDA is the spokesperson for marginalized segments of society. Despite of CDA’s

usefulness in social research, it is subjected to severe criticism because of its
‘explicit’ and ‘biased’ political agenda of bringing social transformation and this
critical perspective of CDA challenges the notion of ‘objectivity’ and ‘neutrality’
of research but CDA practitioners are proud of its biased agenda. Thus, CDA is a
form of social action which reveals explicit and implicit power abuses in discourse.
One general misunderstanding related to CDA is that it is a special method of doing
discourse analysis. However, this is not the case as CDA methods are not rigidly
conventionalized. CDA has also been criticized for this very reason as it does not
offer any ‘replicable’ method and, in fact, there are as many CDA methods as are
the practitioners. Every CDA analyst selects a method informed by their research
perspectives and, thus, all CDA methods stand valid and purpose oriented.

78
CDA is an interdisciplinary approach grounded in structural linguistics and critical
theory. It has borrowed its conceptual perspective and analytical framework from
both fields. Though critical theory is not an established academic discipline as
linguistics or anthropology but has influenced various disciplines like literary
studies, philosophy, psychology and sociology. The works of post-structuralist
theorists such as Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault have greatly
influenced the field of critical theory. They have greatly altered our traditional
perceptions about reality, subjectivity and knowledge. They explore the nature of
reality and whether or not its existence is dependent on our perceptions and
representations of it. Furthermore, they are concerned with the issue of identity, is
it absolute or fluid? Moreover, they are interested in investigating the nature of
knowledge and its objectivity and truth value. Critical theory is the basic source of
usage of the world discourse which proclaims that reality is constructed in and
through discourse through the practices of speaking and writing. The discourses we
produce construct reality which is subjective in nature. CDA is interested in
investigating all these aspects by examining actual examples closely from real life
and by paying attention not only to their content but also to their form. CDA thrives
on the insights derived from structure-oriented linguistics and social linguistics. It
explores why speakers and writers make use of some lexical choices and
grammatical structures and not the other range of possibilities available. Is it done
consciously to achieve certain hidden agenda or communicate certain perspectives
in implicit ways? CDA pays close attention to the ideological significance of the
choices speakers and writers make, and for significant patterns in the distribution
of their choices.

The term critical in CDA is critically important. It reflects the neutrality and
objectivity of the approach and the analyst. We are so deeply rooted in our
indigenous cultures that it becomes difficult for us to distance ourselves to
accurately observe and take record of our customary social practices including our
linguistic behaviour, social interaction and discourse practices. However, in the
case of a foreign culture, we may not face the challenge of making accurate findings
as we are removed from its social structure. In our own indigenous culture, we are
deeply grounded. Therefore, language and discourse must be examined from a
critical perspective as projected by the works of critical discourse analysts Norman
Fairclough, Tuen van Dijk, Ruth Wodak and Deborah Cameron who examine
language as a form of social and cultural practice. As discussed earlier, Critical
discourse analysis focuses particularly on the relationship between power and
discourse, studying the way in which ‘social power abuse, dominance, and
inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and
political context’ (van Dijk 2001: 352). Another important aspect investigated by
the discourse analysts is ‘naturalized discourse’ constructed about certain social

79
reality which appears to be an indispensable feature of our social fabric, an
unavoidable element of our survival:
The critical approach aims to challenge social orders and practices that we
accept as ‘natural’, but which are, in fact, ‘naturalized’; in other words, when
one way of seeing and interpreting the world becomes so common (and so
frequently constructed in discourses) that it is accepted as the only way. In
casting light on this process, critical discourse analysts seek to make visible
the ‘common-sense’ social and cultural assumptions (or ideologies) which,
below the level of conscious awareness, are embedded in all forms of
language that people use (Fairclough 2001).

Discourse influences our perception of the world through the cultural assumptions
it presents. We may not be even fully conscious of such workings of discourse. It
is a two-way process, just as we construct ourselves and our world through the
social practice of language, similarly discourse presented to us constructs us in
particular ways which suit the vested interests of producers of discourse. CDA
unmasks so-called ‘common sensical’ and ‘natural’ ideologies and cultural
assumptions embedded in the use of language and makes them explicitly visible
and as constructions of discourse. CDA challenges the practices which establish the
words of powerful members of society as ‘self-evident truths’, while the words of
others are dismissed as irrelevant or without substance (Woods, 2006:50).

CDA practitioners examine influential discourses of varied kinds in particular

media discourses and discourses of politics, by taking an explicit political position,
and highlighting the workings of social practices and political structures
responsible for creating inequality and injustice. They seek to challenge such
dominant practices and accepted patterns of oppression.

6.2 Methodological Strengths of CDA

As discussed in detail in the previous section, CDA is an influential approach within
the broader field of discourse analysis owing to a number of its unique theoretical
perspectives and methodological features. Its suitability lies in the fact that it can
be employed to both text and talk equally to investigate the interrelationship of
language, power and ideology in discourse.

As it draws insights from various interdisciplinary fields and analyses discourse in

its socio-political context, its potential for investigating complex social issues is
magnified. Furthermore, its emphasis on power and ideology in discourse is
instrumental in highlighting social inequality and power abuse enacted through the
use of language which legitimizes certain perspectives and marginalizes others.

80
CDA advocates a critical perspective towards discourse to unmask hidden agendas,
biases and injustices reflected in societal discourses to bring social change. Its
emancipatory agenda can contribute to bringing social change and transformation
by challenging social and political discriminatory practices reflected in and through
discourse. Furthermore, CDA provides a well-structured framework for detailed
linguistic analysis within broader socio-political contexts of the discourses to gain
invaluable insights. CDA encourages researchers to consider the ethical
implications of their research as well as the potential impact of their findings on
marginalized communities. These aspects lend methodological rigour to CDA
which other approaches to the study of text and talk may lack.

6.3 Criticism of CDA

Despite its theoretical soundness and methodological rigour, CDA has been
subjected to intense critique. The foremost important limitation lies in its subjective
approach and interpretation bias. CDA practitioners, often, cherry-pick cases which
suit their objectives. Their ideologies and preconceived notions may impact the
reliability of research findings. Furthermore, CDA does not offer any standardized
or replicable methodological framework. Practitioners and researchers bring
innovations in the methodologies selected to meet their research specific needs.
This variability can make it difficult to replicate studies or compare findings across
different contexts. This may impact validity of research findings.

Furthermore, CDA emphasizes language as a sole determinant of social reality and

overlooks other relevant and important factors like political and economic
conditions which may result in oversimplification of complex social issues by
reducing them to discursive practices only. CDA’s explicit political agenda is
another potential drawback which undermines objectivity and credibility of
research findings. Furthermore, CDA only highlights power asymmetries enacted
through discourse and fails to acknowledge language’s role in social cohesion and
unity. Addressing these challenges can contribute to enhancing the strength and
applicability of CDA in understanding and transforming complex social realities.

81
 SUMMARY POINTS

i. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is neither a monolithic theory nor a unified

methodological practice, but rather a diverse field of critical inquiry which
offers a variety of approaches, used to analyze complex relationships between
language, power and ideology in written or spoken discourse.

ii. van Dijk (2015), a key theorist and founding member of the field, describes
CDA thus, ‘Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is discourse analytical
research that primarily studies the way social-power abuse and inequality are
enacted, reproduced, legitimated, and resisted by text and talk in the social
and political context’ (p.466).

iii. According to Wodak (2006), one of the leading practitioners of the field,
‘CDA [is] fundamentally interested in analyzing opaque as well as transparent
structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and control
when these are manifested in language. In other words, CDA aims to
investigate critically social inequality as it is expressed, constituted, and
legitimized by language use’ (p. 53).

iv. In CDA all methods of discourse studies are cross disciplinary in nature, as
well as other relevant methods in the humanities and social sciences, may be
used (van Dijk, 2015; Wodak and Meyer, 2008; Titscher et al. 2000).

v. CDA stands for analytical activism with an explicit political agenda of

bringing the dominated, silenced and marginalised voices on the surface to
question and challenge social inequality and power abuse.

vi. CDA is an interdisciplinary approach grounded in structural linguistics and

critical theory. It has borrowed its conceptual perspective and analytical
framework from both fields.

vii. Critical theory is not an established academic discipline as linguistics or

anthropology but has influenced various disciplines like literary studies,
philosophy, psychology and sociology.

viii. CDA unmasks the so-called ‘common sensical’ and ‘natural’ ideologies and
cultural assumptions embedded in the use of language and makes them
explicitly visible and to be constructions of language.

82
ix. CDA challenges the practices which establish the words of powerful members
of society as ‘self-evident truths’, while the words of others are dismissed as
irrelevant or without substance (Woods, 2006:50).

x. The term critical in CDA is critically important. It reflects the neutrality and
objectivity of the approach and the analyst.

xi. The critical approach aims to challenge social orders and practices that we
accept as ‘natural’, but which are, in fact, ‘naturalized’; in other words, when
one way of seeing and interpreting the world becomes so common (and so
frequently constructed in discourses) that it is accepted as the only way.

xii. CDA practitioners examine influential discourses of varied kinds in particular

media discourses and discourses of politics, by taking an explicit political
position, and highlighting the workings of social practices and political
structures responsible for creating inequality and injustice.

xiii. Language and discourse must be examined from a critical perspective as

projected by the works of critical discourse analysts Norman Fairclough,
Tuen van Dijk, Ruth Wodak and Deborah Cameron who examine language
as a form of social and cultural practice.

xiv. Critical discourse analysis focuses particularly on the relationship between

power and discourse, studying the way in which ‘social power abuse,
dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and
talk in the social and political context’ (van Dijk 2001: 352).

xv. Discourse is not only socially constitutive but it is also socially conditioned.
It constitutes various ideologies, reproduces and sustains them but at the same
time, it transforms them.

83
 SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

i. What are the main objectives and goals of CDA, and how does this approach
enable researchers to examine language use as a site of power, ideology, and
social change?

ii. Explain the key steps and techniques involved in conducting CDA, including
data collection, analysis, and interpretation, and discuss how this
methodology differs from traditional linguistic analysis.

iii. How does CDA reveal the ways in which language and discourse are used to
promote and perpetuate dominant ideologies, and how do these ideologies
influence the shaping of societal norms and attitudes?

iv. What are the major strengths and advantages of employing CDA as a research
approach, particularly in understanding how language is implicated in
reinforcing or challenging power structures?

v. Discuss some of the common criticisms or limitations of CDA and explore

how researchers address these challenges to maintain rigour and credibility in
their analytical frameworks.

84
Unit–7

FEMINIST CRITICAL
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Written by: Dr Rashida Imran

Reviewed by: Prof Dr Sarwet Rasul

85
 CONTENTS
Page #
Overview .................................................................................................. 87

Objectives ................................................................................................ 87

7.1 Feminism ......................................................................................... 88

7.2 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) ................................................. 90

7.3 Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (Feminist CDA) .................... 90

7.4 Limitations of Feminist CDA .......................................................... 95

Summary Points ....................................................................................... 96

Self-Assessment Questions ...................................................................... 98

86
 OVERVIEW

This unit deals with theoretical perspectives and methodological designs of one of
the most influential research approaches, dealing with language, gender and power
in discourse, namely Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis. Feminist CDA’s
theorization of discourse has been extensively discussed with its central focus.
Methodological strengths and limitations of feminist CDA have also been
established in concrete terms. Furthermore, the idea of gender performativity is,
also, discussed in greater length.

OBJECTIVES

After reading this unit, you will be able to: -

i. give a background to the development of feminist CDA

ii. appreciate the critical value of feminist CDA

iii. critically appreciate the multiplicity and diversity of feminist CDA tools of
inquiry

iv. discuss the major theoretical perspectives of feminist CDA

v. analyze feminist CDA’s methodology

vi. highlight strengths of feminist CDA’s methodology

vii. understand the bonding of feminism with CDA

viii. identify certain limitations of feminist CDA’s methodology

87
Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis, henceforth feminist CDA is a theoretical and
methodological approach within the broader field of discourse analysis. Grounded
within the philosophical assumptions of the qualitative research paradigm, feminist
CDA focuses on the relationship between gender, power and ideology in discourse.
Feminist CDA is theorized and developed by Lazar (2005), being the bonding of
feminism with CDA, it is informed by valuable insights from both fields of critical
inquiry. To develop a holistic understanding of the theoretical perspective and
methodological design of feminist CDA, it is desirable to discuss feminism and
CDA briefly.

7.1 Feminism
Feminism is a movement dedicated to bringing social revolution to create a society
which is grounded in the golden principles of equality and justice. The primary
objective of the movement is to strive for a social order which does not discriminate
on the basis of gender. The movement, in particular, stresses equality between both
sexes without subjecting women to a ‘disadvantaged position’ in any public
domain. The basic objective of this movement is not only to highlight but also to
end the use of institutionalized exploitative practices against women. The
movement is, also, motivated by an emancipatory agenda of liberating women from
oppression in all of its latent and manifest forms, leading to female empowerment.
Lindsey (2011) claims that the feminist movement uses women’s perceptions and
experiences to create awareness about their issues and devise policies and strategies
to achieve the political agenda of reformation.

Bowen and Wyatt (1993) argue that feminism or feminist inquiry has no specific
definition because by nature these critical concepts resist definitive statements
about their distinctive features, however, hooks (2000) defines feminism in the
simplest terms as, ‘feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and
oppression’ (p. viii). This definition is both holistic and precise because it does not
depict men as the perpetrators of sexism and women as the subject of sexist policies
only. This definition, further, highlights that both sexes can be the victims of sexist
practices in varied cultural contexts based on other intersecting social categories of
race, ethnicity and social class, etc. In its general perception, the notion refers to
any theory or theorist who opines that the social world is structured on unequal
power relations between the sexes which lead to subjugation, subordination and
oppression of women as an underprivileged and marginalized segment of the
society. Therefore, this problem critically needs to be addressed by political theory
and practice. Feminism, thus, is a complex and fluid notion, yielding multiple
attributive meanings for the people of varied socio-political, economic,
geographical and ethnic backgrounds and evolving with a change in people’s

88
perceptions about the world. Showalter (1997) argues about the role of feminism
as, ‘the task of feminist critics is to find a new language, a new way of reading that
can integrate our intelligence and our experience, our reason and our suffering, our
skepticism and our vision....’ (p. 216). Feminism, thus, focuses on establishing an
anti-sexist society both in its spirit as well as in institutional policies and practices.
Feminist theory has attracted scholars from various interdisciplinary fields to
contribute to feminist discourses, for instance, in writing about feminism and
linguistic theory, Cameron (1992) claims that one of her main objectives of research
was to ‘question the whole scholarly objective bias of linguistics and to show how
assumptions and practices of linguistics are implicated in patriarchal ideology and
oppression’ (1992, p. 16).

Furthermore, for feminist theorists, the thought of manmade discourses is as

problematic as is the idea that all the institutions of discourse production and
dissemination are in the control of men who are constructing androcentric
ideologies. Their canon of traditional knowledge produces and legitimizes such
discourses which further strengthen patriarchal ideologies of male supremacy.
Jansen (2002) elaborates this point further:
Feminist claims are “unthinkable” within the domain assumptions of
established social science not only because they forthrightly assert that the
discourses of science are manmade, but also because they ascribe to the far
more radical claims that the epistemologies and the theories of knowledge
that produced these discourses are systematically skewed by both Eurocentric
and masculinist interpretative and textual practices (p. 30).

It is, therefore, emphasized by feminist scholars that females should start creating
discourses about females as the literary space has been colonized by men.
Therefore, to claim literary space, females have to construct oppositional discourses
to challenge malpractices employed by oppressive androcentric ideological
structures. This would be the most significant strategy adopted by feminist scholars
and writers to contribute to the movement through their ideological discourses and
rhetorical skills adding to the feminist critique leading resistance to an oppressive
androcentric regime. The central hypothesis of feminist literary criticism is that
cultural productions, of varied nature, represent the masculine unconscious:
… feminism focuses on the ways that cultural productions (novels, drama, art,
opera, music, movies) reflect and represent the masculine unconscious…Since
women don't have phallus to lose and are not different from their mothers, they
can't participate in the creation of the culture… men's repressed sexual desire for
their mother and fear of the father's castration are sublimated into cultural
creations…No matter what role women play in cultural productions, the male
gaze sees them as desired or despised sexualized objects. (Lorber, 1997: 20-21)

89
However, hooks (2000) opines that sexism is not the only form of oppression but
is intertwined with other social identities reflected through racism and the class
system. Therefore, she asserts that these aspects should also be integrated into the
feminist theory to develop a more holistic approach to the issues of feminist concern
across various cultural contexts. Similarly, the heterogeneity of women’s situation
should also be considered.

7.2 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

Critical discourse analysis (CDA), as discussed in the previous unit, is one of the
most influential approaches within the field of discourse studies with an explicit
agenda of social emancipation and transformation. CDA takes a keen interest in
social problems and shows open solidarity with the oppressed and marginalized
segments of society and highlights the perspective of silenced voices. For further
details, you may consult the previous unit which is exclusively focused on CDA.

7.3 Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (Feminist CDA)

Feminist CDA, originating from the works of Lazar (2007), is specifically
interested in investigating complex interrelationships and workings of power and
ideology in discourses of varied nature which sustain ‘gendered social
arrangements’ privileging men as a social group and discriminating against women.
Feminist CDA, therefore, is concerned, primarily, with social transformation and
emancipation of gender. With its explicit agenda of critiquing gender
discriminatory discourses, Lazar (2007) terms it as a form of ‘analytic activism’.

Within the context of the broader field of discourse analysis, the sub-field of
feminist CDA (Lazar, 2005) offers a compelling theoretical and methodological
framework for detailed analysis of representations of gender, power and ideology
in discourses produced by various societal institutions. Feminist CDA, as a critical
theory and practice, is established and developed as a key approach to analyzing
and critiquing oppressive and hegemonic gendered power relations manifested in
overt and covert forms in discourse from a feminist perspective (Lazar, 2005).

Feminist CDA, therefore, with its primary focus on the social emancipation of
gender, is a critically important contribution to the growing field of critical
discourse studies, specifically regarding gender and language where critical
discourse analysis from a feminist perspective occupies a marginal position as CDA
is mostly interested in ‘serious’ discourses of political nature. Therefore, to shift
the focus on gender from the periphery to the centre of established practices, Lazar
(2005) theorized it to establish its distinct position in centralized approaches to the
study of text and talk. Since its inception in 2005, the field of feminist CDA is

90
constantly growing due to acclaimed scholarly work. There is a growing tendency
to use Feminist CDA in critical, interpretative and explanatory research studies
from the feminist perspective.

Feminist CDA, as a union of feminism with critical discourse analysis aims to

‘advance a rich and nuanced understanding of the complex workings of power and
ideology in discourse in sustaining (hierarchically) gendered social arrangements’
(Lazar, 2007: 141). The critical insights drawn from both the fields of feminism
and CDA provide foundations for understanding the complex interrelationship
between gender, ideology and power. For feminist CDA, ‘the focus is on how
gender ideology and gendered relations of power are (re)produced, negotiated and
contested in representations of social practices, in social relationships between
people, and people’s social and personal identities in texts and talk’ (Lazar,
2005:11).

Feminist CDA, not only focuses on what is said in gendered discourse but also
explores language as it constitutes and embodies a social, cultural and historical
context tied to power and domination. Therefore, analysis of discourse necessarily
involves the notion of ‘critical’ data explorations and investigations. Furthermore,
a feminist CDA perspective is, primarily, interdisciplinary in nature as Lazar (2007)
argues, ‘on the one hand, it contributes to (critical) language and discourse studies
a perspective informed by feminist studies, and on the other hand, it suggests the
usefulness of language and discourse studies for the investigation of feminist issues
in gender and women’s studies’ (p.142). Feminist CDA derives its purposefulness
and theoretical and methodological strength partly from the fact that it presents a
political perspective on gender, which is concerned with deconstructing the
interrelationships of gender, power, and ideology in discourse, and partly from its
potential applicability to the study of texts and talk equally, which offers a
corrective substitute to approaches that favour one linguistic mode over another.
The aim of feminist CDA, as described by Lazar (2007), is therefore:
...to show up the complex, subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, ways in which
frequently taken-for-granted gendered assumptions and hegemonic power
relations are discursively produced, sustained, negotiated, and challenged in
different contexts and communities. Such an interest is not merely an
academic deconstruction of texts and talk for its own sake but comes from an
acknowledgement that the issues dealt with (in view of affecting social
change) have material and phenomenological consequences for groups of
women and men in specific communities. (p. 142)

The primary objective and central concern of the discourse analysts working within
the field of feminist CDA lies with critiquing gendered discourses which perpetuate
and reinforce a patriarchal social order which prescribes relations of power that

91
systematically privilege men as a social group, and disadvantage, exclude,
marginalize, undermine and disempower women as a social group. Feminist CDA,
therefore, focuses on critiquing gender- based patriarchal ideologies which position
women in the periphery and men in the centre of the power hierarchy (Lazar, 2005).
Wilkinson and Kitzinger (1995, p.5) observe that there is really ‘no necessary
coincidence between the interests of feminists and discourse analysts’, however,
feminism and critical discourse analysis share a common ground and there is much
overlap in terms of goals of social transformation and emancipation. Thus, this
powerful synthesis can be instrumental for discourse analysts interested in critical
data explorations from a predominantly feminist perspective.

In comparison to other feminist approaches to discourse analysis, Feminist CDA

presents dynamic theoretical and methodological possibilities for discourse
analysts since its philosophical foundation is rooted in politically invested grand
narrative of critical discourse analysis. A feminist political perspective on gendered
social identities, relations and ideologies is particularly motivated by an
emancipatory agenda of social transformation. Feminist discourse analysts
critically scrutinize and contest structural and functional elements of a hegemonic
patriarchal social order to achieve both feminist and humanist ideals of a just
society, in which gender does not predetermine social spaces, identities and roles
assigned to men and women (Grant, 1993; Hill-Collins, 1990). Therefore, Lazar
(2007) rightly claims that the work undertaken by critical feminists can be termed
academic activism, raising critical awareness through research and teaching, of
which feminist CDA constitutes a form of analytical activism through its
theorization and analysis of discourse reflecting gender discriminatory practices.
Though the field of Feminist CDA is constantly growing and expanding, its
methodology is not rigidly regulated to lose its highly reflexive nature, such an
approach may appear confusing for the practitioners on the one hand, but on the
other hand, it allows for constant refinement, innovation and improvement, as
Philips & Hardy (2002) claim:
As methods become formalized, they run the risk of being reified into a sort
of research machine where researchers are reduced to technicians who simply
turn a methodological handle and produce ‘truth’. A major advantage of
working in a new area is the constant pressure to think about your own role
in the research process and to be aware of how you have ‘made it all up’. We
have found that the benefits of such regular reflection on the nature of
research and the role of the researcher have far outweighed the difficulties of
using a relatively underdeveloped methodology. (2002: v)

The scope of analyzing discourse produced by various societal institutions within

the theoretical and methodological paradigm of feminist CDA is quite extensive.
Based on close empirical analysis, it focuses on contextualized instances of spoken

92
and written language along with other forms of semiotics such as gestures, signs,
symbols and actions in texts and talk. Thus:
The levels and foci of analysis in feminist CDA are also wide-ranging,
including choices in lexis, clauses/sentences/utterances, conversational turns,
structures of argument, and interactions among discourses. The latter, also
known as ‘interdiscursive analysis’ (Fairclough, 1992), is primarily
influenced by Bakhtin’s (1981) ideas of heteroglossia and the dialogicality of
texts and is concerned with the identification of and, more importantly, the
interaction among different discourses within particular texts and talk. (Lazar,
2005, p. 13)

Data analysis not only includes and focuses on the meanings expressed overtly and
explicitly but as Lazar (2005) argues, ‘it is especially attentive to the less obvious,
nuanced and implicit meanings for the subtle and complex renderings of ideological
assumptions and power relations in contemporary societies’ (p. 13).

Feminist CDA, principally, focuses on the socio-cultural context of specific

communities to scrutinize their cultural products like television plays,
documentaries and fictional narratives to develop a holistic understanding of ways
of being and doing gender. Thus, feminist CDA focuses on the context of the texts
to derive meanings in their entirety and to unmask gendered ideologies by exploring
social situations, cultural representations, historical periods or assumptions implicit
in their discourses and narratives.

Thus, a close and systematic analysis of the socio-cultural context in feminist CDA
not only explores the meaning and relevance of the texts but also illuminates the
ways discourses become instrumental in the construction, deconstruction,
perpetuation and reinforcement of gendered ideologies. To conclude, feminist CDA
analyzes the discourses of varied nature by contextualizing them in cultural
practices, social values and political philosophies of their production and
consumption for both critical engagement and reflections on hegemonic gender
ideologies.

Textual or graphic representations of socio-cultural assumptions and practices of a

particular society, dominant discourses of its societal, as well as gendered
ideologies embedded in collective societal consciousness, overtly and covertly
revealed in the discourse, lead to the investigations of the positioning of women in
the society and to explore their psyche and consciousness. Therefore, contextual
sensibility is required not only to develop a compelling and convincing narrative
but also to decode its explicit and implicit ideologies embedded in presuppositions
made and inferences drawn from its discourse.

93
Feminist CDA provides invaluable insight into the workings of gender power
dynamics within the context of patriarchal societies. Unequal power relations
between men and power are not produced and sustained by gender only because it
is only one aspect of an individual’s identity though it is the most important factor
in determining an individual’s social reality. There are some other intersecting
social categories such as race, ethnicity, social class and sexuality which interact
with gender to produce and sustain asymmetrical power relations and shape
discursive practices. For instance, within the context of colonized India, an English
woman was rendered powerful as compared to a native Indian man. It is evident
from this instance that gender is not a determining factor but rather race. Similarly,
a native Indian man enjoyed more power as compared to one of his subordinates
and in this case, gender is similar but professional rank is different. Furthermore, a
woman who belongs to the elite class is more powerful as compared to one of her
domestic help, in this case, social class is the factor responsible for differential
power status. Therefore, gender studied as a discrete category may not yield fruitful
findings so intersecting categories must also be taken into consideration for
objective analysis.

Feminist CDA, as a form of analytic activism, investigates how women and other
marginalized groups are represented in a diverse range of discourses, especially in
media discourses. It seeks to explore whether representations of masculinity or
femininity are objective or biased. Furthermore, feminist CDA critiques sexist and
stereotyped portrayals of women. Advertising discourse is also extensively
scrutinized and objectification of women is challenged. Similarly, textbooks are
also analyzed and it is observed that women are mostly underrepresented and
stereotyped. It is argued that by critiquing gendered discourses and highlighting
biased representations, space is created to contest and challenge such
representations for the transformation and emancipation of gender. Feminist CDA
also reveals how gender ideologies are embedded in discourses overtly and covertly
and seeks to unravel hidden ideologies. The central premise of feminist CDA is that
gender power relations are enacted through language use and can be contested or
resisted by marginalized groups by constructing competing discourses. Feminist
CDA is suitable for the analysis of text and talk across discourse genres including
but not limited to media discourse, political discourses, textbooks, cultural products
and discourses produced by various key epistemological sites. Feminist CDA is not
only concerned with deconstructing oppressive discourses but its primary objective
is to contribute to social change and empowerment of the suppressed and silenced
voices. By exploring and highlighting discriminatory and oppressive language
practices, discourse analysts seek to raise awareness to inculcate inclusive and just
language practices.

94
7.4 Limitations of Feminist CDA
Feminist CDA is a valuable approach to understanding how language and discourse
shape and reflect gender inequalities. However, like any other research
methodology, it is not free of criticism. The nature of scholarly critique of the
approach and its methodology is as under:
Feminist CDA has an explicit emancipatory agenda like CDA of highlighting
the perspective of silenced voices. This political perspective combined with
the element of subjectivity and preconceived notions of the analyst may lead
to the manipulation of research findings. Furthermore, two different analysts
may draw altogether different inferences from the research findings based on
their political perspective on gendered discourses as well as their own lived
experiences. Thus, the findings may not be reliable. Similarly, feminist CDA
is, further, criticized because it ignores the diversity of women’s survival
conditions around the globe. Women never make a homogenous group; the
heterogeneity of their livid experiences must be taken into consideration
before transferring research findings to another cultural context. The feminist
movement was also challenged on the same grounds by the women of colour
that the movement has been hijacked by the white women who do not
represent the diversity of females’ reality of existence and their experiences
in the developing world communities. Similarly, a feminist CDA practitioner
may overlook the intersecting social categories of race, ethnicity, social class
and sexuality interacting with gender. The theory proposes that these
intersecting categories must be taken into consideration while analyzing
gendered discourses. However, bringing these intersectional categories into
analysis might be challenging so analysts may conduct mixed-method
research. Furthermore, it might be challenging for an analyst to establish
whether discourses simply reflect gendered stereotypes or also contribute to
sustaining and perpetuating them, because feminist CDA like other
approaches to discourse analysis focuses on the discourses but do not explore
their impact on readers and or viewers. Data triangulation may serve this
purpose.

Furthermore, the approach focuses on the use of sexist or gender-biased language

and highlights the need for using gender-neutral terms but language is like a living
organism, it constantly changes and evolves with time and if there are no
longitudinal studies and only cross-sectional ones, the analysts may not capture
historical shifts in their essence. Feminist CDA focuses on power dynamics and
acknowledges the fact that power is a fluid entity but the complexities of power
relations in society may not always be fully captured by discourse analysis alone.
Power operates at multiple levels, and discourse is just one aspect of its
manifestation. These limitations are few in comparison to the productivity of the
approach and these too can be resolved through constant reflection and refinement.

95
The field of feminist CDA is constantly expanding and evolving. It is extensively
used for analyzing the role of language in reproducing or challenging gender
inequalities. Researchers working within the field must be aware of the challenges
and address them to produce more nuanced and reliable findings. Integrating
feminist CDA with other approaches and frameworks can enhance the
understanding of gendered discourses and their far-reaching consequences.

SUMMARY POINTS

i. Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis, henceforth feminist CDA is a

theoretical and methodological approach within the broader field of discourse
analysis.

ii. Grounded within the philosophical assumptions of the qualitative research

paradigm, feminist CDA focuses on the relationship between gender, power
and ideology in discourse.

iii. Feminist CDA is theorized and developed by Lazar (2005), being the union
of feminism with CDA, it is informed by valuable insights from both fields
of critical inquiry.

iv. Lindsey (2011) argues that the feminist movement uses women’s perceptions
and experiences to devise strategies to attain the political goal of gender
equality in all spheres of life.

v. Bowen and Wyatt (1993) claim that there is no precise definition of feminism
or feminist inquiry because by nature these concepts resist definitive
statements about their characteristic features.

vi. hooks (2000), a black feminist, is of the opinion that sexism is not the only form
of oppression but it intertwines with racism and the class system. Therefore, she
asserts that these factors should also be integrated into the feminist theory to
develop a more holistic approach to the issues of feminist concern.

vii. Feminist CDA is specifically concerned with complex workings of power and
ideology in discourse which sustains ‘gendered social arrangements’ that
privilege men as a social group and are discriminatory to women.

viii. Feminist CDA, therefore, is concerned with social transformation and

emancipation of gender. Hence, Lazar (2007) terms it as a form of ‘analytic
activism’.

96
ix. Feminist CDA, with its focus on the social emancipation of gender, is a
fundamentally important contribution to the growing field of critical
discourse studies, with special reference to gender and language where
critical discourse analysis from a feminist perspective occupies a marginal
position.

x. Feminist CDA, not only focuses on what is said but also takes it as its basic
premise to explore language as it constitutes and embodies a socio-historic
context tied to power and domination.

xi. The political perspective combined with the element of subjectivity and
preconceived notions of the analyst may lead to the manipulation of research
findings.

xii. Furthermore, two different analysts may draw altogether different inferences
from the research findings based on their political perspective on gendered
discourses as well as their own lived experiences.

xiii. Similarly, feminist CDA is, further, criticized because it ignores the diversity
of women’s survival conditions around the globe.

xiv. Furthermore, a feminist CDA practitioner may overlook the intersecting

social categories of race, ethnicity, social class and sexuality interacting with
gender. The theory proposes that these intersecting categories must be taken
into consideration while analyzing gendered discourses.

xv. Researchers working within the field must be aware of the challenges and
address them to produce more nuanced and reliable findings. Integrating
feminist CDA with other approaches and frameworks can enhance the
understanding of gendered discourses and their far-reaching consequences.

97
 SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

1. How does Feminist CDA specifically focus on gender-related issues and

power dynamics in discourse, and how does it contribute to our understanding
of gendered representations and inequalities?

2. What are the key theoretical foundations and feminist frameworks that inform
Feminist CDA, and how do these perspectives shape the analysis of language
and discourse from a gender-sensitive lens?

3. Explain the specific research methods and analytical tools employed in

Feminist CDA to explore the role of language in perpetuating or challenging
gender norms, stereotypes, and patriarchy.

4. What are the major strengths of Feminist CDA as an approach to uncovering

gender-related issues in discourse, and how does it contribute to advancing
gender equality and social justice?

5. Discuss some of the potential limitations or critiques of Feminist CDA,

including challenges related to subjectivity, data selection, and the potential
risk of treating gender identities independently without considering
intersecting categories.

98
Unit–8

DISCOURSE GENRES

Written by: Dr Rashida Imran

Reviewed by: Prof Dr Sarwet Rasul

99
 CONTENTS
Page #
Overview .................................................................................................. 101

Objectives ................................................................................................ 101

8.1 Discourse Genres ............................................................................. 102

8.2 Discourse of Advertising ................................................................. 104

8.3 Discourse of Politics ........................................................................ 106

8.4 Discourse of Law ............................................................................. 108

8.5 Literary Discourse ........................................................................... 110

Summary Points ....................................................................................... 112

Self-Assessment Questions ...................................................................... 114

100
 OVERVIEW

This unit analyses some key genres of discourse including the discourse of
advertising, the discourse of politics, the discourse of law and literary discourse.
Structuralist, formalist, stylistic and discursive features of these prominent
discourse genres have also been highlighted. Furthermore, their comparative and
contrastive features have been discussed in detail to develop a holistic
understanding.

OBJECTIVES

After reading this unit, you will be able to: -

i. describe the term discourse genre

ii. critically review the idea of discourse community

iii. discuss stylistic features of advertising discourse

iv. highlight the structure of discourse of law

v. explain asymmetrical power relations in institutionalized discourses

vi. analyze how ideologies are embedded in the discourse of politics

vii. discuss major challenges involved in analyzing literary discourse genre

101
Description of discourse essentially entails detailed analysis of language ‘beyond
the sentence level’ and is equally applicable to the investigation of ‘language in
use’. However, this analysis is not restricted to a mere description of structuralist
and stylistic features of the language but it also takes into consideration the
relationship between the linguistic form(s) and their corresponding function(s) as
language does not exist in a social void. Thus, the relationship between a linguistic
form and its function is materialized during the process of social interaction and
within the specific context of an utterance. These relationships are not naturally
inscribed to the language but rather we ‘construct’ them during the process of our
social interaction. Since this relationship is constructed, hence lies the possibility
of negotiating or deconstructing form-function correlates which implies that the
relationship between the forms and functions of our language is not absolute but
rather fluid. Any diachronic investigation of language may reveal substantial
findings to support this hypothesis. Therefore, no linguistic form can be simply
associated with one particular function or meaning and rather this relationship is
essentially dependent on the context of an utterance as the intended meaning of an
utterance or communicative intention of a speaker may altogether change in varying
contexts. This implies that the syntactic structure of a linguistic form may remain
fixed, however, its function may vary according to the change in contextual
background. This realization leads us to the understanding that the description of
discourse is not merely limited to the linguistic elements but also their functions or
intended meanings.

Discourse has a constitutive property as it constructs our reality through explicit

and implicit social and cultural assumptions it presents. It influences and shapes
our perceptions of the social world and seeks to construct us in particular ways to
perform various social roles which suit the vested interests of the producer(s) of
discourse (s). Discourse production, dissemination and consumption are critically
important in achieving this end. Discourse not only reflects but also transforms our
social reality. Viewed in this sense, discourse performs a dualistic function of social
constitution and transformation.

8.1 Discourse Genres

Discourses can be classified into various genres based on their unique structuralist,
formalist and stylistic features as well as their functions. Every discourse genre has its
own particular ways of using language in both speech and writing. We can instantly
identify the genre of a certain stretch of ‘language beyond the sentence level’ or
‘language in use’ based on its style, register and jargon. These variations in the use of
language are carefully tailored to perform certain functions and are prevalent at various
levels of language structure including but not restricted to phonological, morphological

102
and syntactical levels. The unique features of different discourse genres used in various
professional domains serve to draw boundaries between the ‘insiders’ and the
‘outsiders’. The producers of these discourses pay close attention to the targeted
audience to avoid any potential linguistic and communicative ambiguity keeping in
view differential and asymmetrical levels of knowledge and experiences shared by the
discourse producers and discourse consumers. Through these discourses, producers
tend to establish their power and authority by causing favourable psychological impact
on discourse consumers.

Furthermore, the term ‘power’ as used in the scholarly literature on discourse(s) is

neither a static entity nor unidirectional in nature. Rather, it is a fluid entity which
can be contested and negotiated. Thus, the agents who may be rendered powerless
at a certain point during interaction may be treated as powerful as a product of
contestation and negotiation. This remains valid even in the cases where inherent
asymmetry in power relations exists between the participants. However, in the case
of institutionalized discourses, inherently asymmetrical power relations are
difficult to negotiate and contested as is the case with courtroom proceedings,
police investigations and classroom exchanges. However, highly articulate
participants may negotiate and create some space for themselves on the power
hierarchy irrespective of their comparatively powerless status. Different discourse
genres exhibit different levels of power symmetry or asymmetry based on the
context of their production and consumption as well as the targeted audience.

A genre, generally speaking, is considered to be a socially recognized way of using

language (Hyland, 2002). Language use is specific to the discourse community
associated with a genre. To investigate a particular discourse genre, not only the
texts but also their social contexts are considered. Furthermore, what functions
these texts perform in their discourse communities are also taken into consideration
but the primary focus of the analysts is always on the description of the texts or the
ways these texts are rhetorically created to construct and reflect their specific
communities who are conceptualized as ‘the parent of genre’ by Swales (1990). He,
further, argues that the notion of a discourse community is attributed to the works
of social constructionist theorists like Herzberg (1986) who claimed:
Use of the term “discourse community” testifies to the increasingly common
assumption that discourse operates within conventions defined by
communities, be they academic disciplines or social groups. The pedagogies
associated with writing across the curriculum and academic English now use
the notion of “discourse community” to signify a cluster of ideas: that
language use in a group is a form of social behaviour, that discourse is a means
of maintaining and extending the group’s knowledge and of initiating new
members into the group, and that discourse is epistemic or constitutive of the
group’s knowledge (Herzberg, 1986: 1, as cited in Swales, 1990:21).

103
The interrelatedness of discourse communities and discourse genres is extensively
acknowledged, for instance, Hyland (2002: 121) argues, ‘by focusing on the
distinctive rhetorical practices of different communities, we can more clearly see
how language is used and how the social, cultural, and epistemological
characteristics of different disciplines are made real’. Thus, genres are
conventionalized communicative events grounded in various disciplines and
professional practices and due to their unique linguistic and stylistic features one
genre may stand in sharp contrast as compared to another. However, we may come
across certain genres where the unique features are not very distinct, hence
boundaries are quite blurred. Resultantly one genre may incorporate discursive
features of another in the form of intertextuality. This point will be further
highlighted in our discussion on the discourse of politics, and we will observe how
various features of advertising discourse are incorporated into the discourse of
politics to develop powerful and persuasive arguments to win the support of the
masses.

Discourse genres exhibit marked preferences for different lexical choices and
varying patterns of syntactic arrangements based on their unique functions.
Furthermore, discourse genres are typical of the professional fields they belong to.
We will discuss some of the chief representative discourse genres in the following
section.

8.2 Discourse of Advertising

The most prevalent discourses in contemporary societies are advertisements. We
are exposed to electronic and print media advertisements of various kinds. This
incessant exposure to advertisements has a deep impact on our psychology and it
transforms our social reality. It leads us to perform the role of potential consumers.
It is the most carefully planned form of discourse which is aimed at modifying
consumer behaviour. Rhetorical features of advertising discourses are creatively
fashioned thereby making it the most pervasive of all forms of discourses. It would
not be an exaggeration to claim that advertising discourses not only promote
consumerism but also inculcate desirability among their targeted audiences. It is
carefully planned and uniquely constructed to make it one of the most powerful,
potent and persuasive discourses for promoting and strengthening consumer
culture. Though, the producers and/or consumers of advertising discourses are
segregated by temporal and spatial boundaries, these discourses are powerful
enough to develop a positive relationship between the two and cause a favourable
psychological impact on the viewers. Though it appears to be a form of one-way
communication, producers manage to make it reciprocal by using the technique of
personalization and rhetorical questions to evoke a positive response from the

104
potential consumers of the products and services advertised. Creating a relationship
with the consumers is challenging but crafty use of language enables the advertisers
to manage it efficiently:
The language of advertising is widely characterized as persuasive and
seductive, and its discourse exploits linguistic devices that are cleverly
designed to attract us to a lifestyle of aspirational consumerism; so
successfully, indeed, that it both reflects cultural and social values and also
contrives to create new attitudes and needs (Woods, 2006: xvi).

Advertising discourse is the chief representative of carefully planned and designed

linguistic craft to meet its primary objective of attracting viewers to advertised
products and services. Language, certainly, plays a key role in achieving this end
besides other semiotic features of advertisements. Some advertisers sell products
through hard sell techniques by explicitly inviting potential consumers to use their
products whereas some employ soft sell techniques to persuade and convince
potential buyers to use their products. Whatever techniques are employed, the basic
objective is to maximize their market share by promoting consumerism which is,
also evident from Leacock’s (1924) famous definition of advertising as ‘the science
of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it’. Creative and
innovative use of language is highly instrumental in achieving this end. Discourse
analysts, analyzing advertisements, often investigate how consumer ideology is
embedded in their discourse. They also highlight some interesting findings
regarding structuralist and stylistic features which make advertising discourse
highly powerful, persuasive and potent. As described earlier, advertising language
is marked by the use of carefully chosen word terminology, syntactic structures of
varying length, as well as rich use of stylistic devices employed together in the
construction and manipulation of meaning. Advertising discourse also heavily
relies on semiotic features besides the interplay of linguistic codes. Extensive use
of icons, signs and symbols enhances the impact of intended meaning. Rhetorical
strategies are used to appeal to both the logic and emotions of the targeted audience.
The aspect of personalization is carefully employed to address us directly to create
an impression that the product advertised is uniquely customized for us. This is
often achieved by using the second person pronoun ‘you’, this technique creates the
impression that the message is communicated to us.

Advertising discourse is highly dependent on the context and is essentially

grounded in the social and cultural values of a society. It not only reflects but also
constructs new social values by either reproducing or challenging stereotyped
behaviour and norms. It would not be an exaggeration to claim that advertising
discourses mirror the society of their production, dissemination and consumption.
Every advertisement has a primary and secondary discourse, its primary discourse
is informative as it provides us with relevant information about the product
105
advertised, however, its secondary discourse is evaluative as it describes social and
cultural perceptions and practices of the society. For instance, an advertisement for
a beauty product may be partly informative highlighting chemical composition and
its effects but it would also provide us valuable insights into our society which is
preoccupied with the ideal feminine beauty image. Similarly, an advertisement of
a household appliance would not only inculcate desirability by highlighting its
unique features but would also reveal gendered norms, values and behaviour
regarding who is responsible for managing the household affairs, etc. The
discourses of advertisements are extensively scrutinized not only to understand how
language and semiotic features are used to promote and sustain consumer culture
but also to analyze their role in promoting unrealistic beauty image which is
inherently discriminatory in nature.

Furthermore, linguistic analysis of the advertising discourse reveals that advertisers

make use of rhetorical questions to grab the attention of the viewers. Rhetorical
questions evoke curiosity among potential consumers which eventually leads to
creating desirability. Product desirability is further reinforced through open-ended
comparisons. For instance, an advertisement may claim that the product advertised
works better but better than which product is never revealed. However, it causes a
favourable psychological impact and a viewer assumes that it works better than all
other products intended to serve the same purpose. Furthermore, advertising
language is marked by extensive use of descriptive words to create vivid images
and positive impact. Similarly, abundant use of figurative language like simile,
metaphor, personification and hyperbole is also instrumental in creating the desired
impact. Moreover, advertising discourse includes factual statements but their
function is evaluative in nature. Similarly, advertisers use catchy phrases,
presuppositions and various other linguistic features to reach the targeted audience.
On the surface level, advertising discourse is meant for information exchange,
however, on a deeper level it is intended for activity exchange.

8.3 Discourse of Politics

The genre of political discourse has been profoundly affected by the rapid
expansion of traditional and social media platforms. As a genre, it includes
speeches, talk shows, interviews, debates and focus group discussions dealing with
political issues. The discourse of politics is the chief representative of the discourses
which influence and shape people’s perceptions. Politicians employ various
linguistic strategies to construct ‘reality’ not only for themselves but for their
political opponents. They not only construct political ideologies but also present
persuasive arguments to convince people that they are the real solution to all of
their problems. They also propagate that they possess the right credentials to rescue

106
them from the evil clutches of social, economic and political adversaries. On the
patterns of imperial powers, politicians construct the discourses of being the
‘saviour of the nation’ and pursue their vested interests in the guise of a liberating
agenda. We can draw interesting analogies between the discourse of politics and
the discourse of advertising. Advertising discourse offers solutions, in the form of
products and services advertised, to health, hygiene and household problems but
their hidden motive is to maximize their revenue and promote consumer culture.
The discourse of politics, similarly, offers solutions to people’s problems but
politicians meet their own vested interests once they are in power. Advertising
discourse inculcates desirability for products and services whereas political
discourse inculcates desirability for certain political parties and their respective
ideologies. Thus, the discourse of politics incorporates various essential elements
of advertising discourse on linguistic and ideological levels. Furthermore, the
discourse of politics is marked by the feature of intertextuality and relies on
discourses produced by various state and non-state institutions to develop their
arguments more persuasively and convincingly. It would not be an exaggeration to
claim that due to the recent boom of social media besides other traditional electronic
and print media, political discourses are incessantly constructed, disseminated and
consumed providing fertile ground for evoking opposing and competing political
ideologies. Various catchphrases and slogans are frequently used to cause a
favourable psychological impact on the viewers/readers to influence and shape their
perception of reality. Political speeches are often grounded in politically and
emotionally charged ideas and rely heavily on religious and media discourses to
support and strengthen their arguments. The discourse of advertising and politics is
often embedded in collective societal consciousness and controls the psyche of the
people in such a way that they behave like programmed or conditioned subjects.

Political discourse is designed to have impressive and persuasive impact but it is

often regarded as lacking in meaningful content or sincerity. Similar to advertising
discourse, political discourse reflects the art and science of persuasion which is the
finest representation of the ancient theory of rhetoric presented by the Greek
philosopher, Aristotle. Political arguments are grounded in three rhetorical appeals
including ethos, pathos and logos for their effective impact on the audience. Ethos,
a Greek word for character, refers to the authority and expertise of a speaker or
writer. For instance, a politician who is well versed in the economic state of affairs
of the country quotes statistics accurately and aptly creating a better impact on the
audience as compared to the one who has no grounding in the economic conditions
of the country. On similar patterns, advertising discourse makes use of celebrity
endorsements and testimonials for beauty products to cause favourable
psychological effects. Similarly, a toothpaste recommended by a dentist has a
strong ethos as compared to a recommendation given by a non-professional. This

107
is not merely because they are professionals in the fields but because they
demonstrate ideal results or benefits of the product. Their recommendations are
treated like testimonials.

The discourse of politics incorporates the aspect of pathos and appeals to people’s
emotions both positive and negative. Political discourse is centred on emotionally
charged ideas especially during the election campaign. Politicians elicit people’s
emotions to affect their judgments and to counter the narratives presented by other
political parties. Politicians are aware of the ground realities and know what kind
of discourses may be constructed to evoke an emotional state in the audience. This
essentially provides them with a basis to effectively present their arguments,
develop evidence and identify counterarguments. Within the context of Pakistani
political discourse, we can easily identify emotionally charged ideas embedded in
our religious and national ideology, of independence, self-reliance and dignity.
Thus, the appeal of pathos can be overwhelming because a heightened emotional
state can overpower logic and reasoning.

The discourse of politics is also grounded in the third element of rhetoric which is
logos which appeals to logical reasoning and the audience’s sense and sensibility.
Great politicians tend to consider this aspect of persuasive speech and make
reasonable claims which can be supported with evidence. They would not make a
claim which can be either nullified or falsified. However, they are exceptional cases
too as many political arguments are mere sweeping statements without taking into
consideration the contextual reality. Nevertheless, the audience believes in their
false promises because of their powerful oratory.

On the superficial level, much of the political discourse appears to be spontaneous

but the case might be the opposite. Political statements, slogans and catchphrases
are skillfully crafted and rehearsed. Professional political speech writers are hired
to impact the audience’s sensibilities. Therefore, it is commonplace to find
persuasive linguistic techniques which are customary in advertising discourse.

As with the language of advertising, political discourse is also multifunctional: it

may be used, for example, to perform a variety of speech acts: to protest, to
legitimize, to intimidate, as well as to persuade, of course. Indeed, in much the same
way as the discourse of advertising seeks to persuade us to purchase a product or
service, the language used by politicians is designed to lead us to a particular view
of political reality, and to act in a way that is consistent with this view – by voting
for a particular party, for example. (Woods, 2006: 50)

108
To achieve the objective of causing a desirable impact on the public, politicians
employ various stylistic devices like metaphor and hyperbole which are
incorporated at the phrase or sentence level. We can very easily recall such
catchphrases from Pakistani political discourse, ‘The country is going through the
toughest phase.’, ‘We are going bankrupt.’, ‘No power on the earth can destroy
Pakistan.’, ‘Muslim Ummah’, ‘strategic depth’, ‘cascade of change’ and ‘true
freedom’, etc. The close association between politics and language is not a new
phenomenon and it was practiced in ancient times too which led Aristotle to
hypothesize that human beings are naturally political animals who use language for
persuasion to achieve political ends.

8.4 Discourse of Law

The discourse of law is a specialized discourse which is highly pervasive in the
contemporary world. Structuralist, formalist and stylistic conventions of legal
discourse stand in sharp contrast with advertising discourse. The former gives a
lengthy and detailed description of legalese whereas the latter is more oriented to
the brevity of expression owing to expenses involved in publishing print media
advertisements or broadcasting electronic ones. Within the field of legal discourse,
discourse analysts, often, focus on differential features of written and spoken
discourses. The language of written legalese often makes use of archaic
terminology reflected in legal contracts and deeds; however, it is not frequently
used in spoken legal discourse like courtroom proceedings and criminals’
investigations in police custody which is often perceived as manipulative and
coercive. Legal discourse is the finest representation of asymmetrical power
relations. Courtroom proceedings and police investigations not only reflect but also
maintain such relations between the participants which is evident in the way
language is used.

Legal discourse is chiefly characterized by its use of formal language and

terminology which is both precise and technical. We, often, find the use of archaic
Greek and Latin phrases in legal documents, deeds, contracts and affidavits.
Furthermore, the use of specific legal jargon ensures clarity in legal communication
enabling uniformity and accuracy in interpretation. The word terminology used is
precise and specific and exact meanings of words and phrases are given followed
by detailed descriptions, if required. Legal terms, often, have defined meanings to
eliminate misinterpretation. Legal discourse is characterized by formality in style
and structure and does not allow the use of colloquial terms, slang and emotional
language to enhance subjectivity and neutrality. This formal approach to legalese
lends seriousness and authority to legal documents and proceedings. Legal
discourse is marked by complex syntactic structures and lengthy paragraphs. This
style of writing is aimed at capturing detailed legal conditions and exceptions

109
comprehensively within a single sentence or paragraph as it is tailored for a specific
audience.

Legal arguments are presented in a structured way by following logical progression:

issues are stated in a simplified and straightforward manner along with supportive
and relevant facts, and pertinent laws or precedents are also shared to draw
inferences and conclusions. This systematic pattern helps professionals in the field
to build persuasive arguments.

Legal discourse is heavily context- dependent like other discourse genres and it
requires a thorough understanding of legal rules, regulations and principles.
Awareness of historical background and the intent behind the legal provision is also
a prerequisite to interpret legal statues in their specific contexts. To conclude, the
discourse of law is a highly structured and systematic form of communication
which is critically important in the development, interpretation and application of
legal principles and practices. The legalese is aimed at fostering clarity, consistency
and accuracy to minimize any potential risk of ambiguity and misunderstanding.
The discourse of law encompasses a diverse range of activities from courtroom
proceedings to scholarly debates.

8.5 Literary Discourse

Literary discourse is marked by unique complexities of its kind based on its
adherence to literary traditions and conventions. Owing to its stylistic features, the
literary discourse genre does not exhibit a linear relationship between the linguistic
forms and their corresponding functions. Thus, it reflects a certain level of
structural and functional complexity which we hardly find in any other discourse
genres discussed in this unit. This idea is often highlighted by various scholars in
the field, for instance, Sunderland (2004) points out various challenges involved in
analyzing the discourse of fiction which include blurred boundaries between
fantasy and reality, the dialogic nature of its discourse leading to a range of parallel
and competing perspectives, intertextuality, relationship between the author and
narrator’s point of view as well as focalized perspectives of various other characters
who populate the narrative. Thus, it can be asserted that ‘narrative discourse is a
specific type of discourse and may, in part, be defined in terms of the conventional
categories, rules and other constraints which distinguish it from other discourse
types’ (van Dijk, 1980: 6).

Besides these constraining elements, there is another significant challenge faced by

a discourse analyst in the quest for ‘meaning’, the problem of interpretation which
is more prevalent in the literary genre of discourse as compared to other genres.

110
Literary meanings cannot be produced in isolation, rather, a variety of viewpoints,
diverse perspectives, multiple voices and intersecting discourses are mobilized
together in the process of production of meaning, this is a fundamental insight
which is commonly associated with Bakhtin (1981), his most famous ideas of
polyphony and dialogism, for the characteristic presence of many voices in any
discourse; this is the most significant defining feature of literary discourse.

As described earlier, the literary discourse genre has several unique features which
are not commonly found in non-literary genres. It exhibits a marked preference for
creative and artistic use of language which enhances its aesthetic appeal. There is
abundant use of imagery and symbolism which adds to the richness of its meanings.
Literary discourse often makes use of flowery expressions and poetic diction based
on the literary talent of the creative artist. Literary texts often employ the use of
stylistic devices like simile, metaphor, personification, hyperbole and alliteration,
etc. The objective is to create a vivid image in the minds of readers. The literary
discourse is not only rich in linguistic expression but also evocative aimed at
creating emotional responses and sensory experiences in the readers as it tends to
explore complex themes dealing with philosophical, psychological, political and
socio-cultural issues. The discourse of literary genre may not follow linear flow of
thought or logical progression of ideas owing to its unique structural complexity.
Literary discourse, often, relies on connotative or associative meanings of the
linguistic expressions as compared to the discourse of law which depends on
denotative or literal meanings for the clarity of expression. Similarly, the discourse
of law does not create space for multiple interpretations of the legal texts but the
literary genre shows marked preference for multiple layers of interpretations owing
to the prevalence of intertextuality. Literary discourse is often set in a broader
socio-cultural context so contextual sensibility is required for the successful
interpretation of its meanings. Within the domain of literary discourse, different
genres like prose, poetry, fiction and drama exhibit distinctive stylistic features and
conventions, influencing the form and function of the text. Thus, unique features of
literary discourse contribute to its richness, complexity and enduring appeal the
aesthetic sense of the readers.

111
 SUMMARY POINTS

i. Description of discourse essentially entails detailed analysis of language

‘beyond the sentence level’ and is equally applicable to the investigation of
‘language in use’.

ii. Discourse analysis is not restricted to a mere description of structuralist and

stylistic features of the language but it also takes into consideration the
relationship between the linguistic form(s) and their corresponding
function(s) as language does not exist in a social void.

iii. The relationship between a linguistic form and its function is materialized
during the process of social interaction and within the specific context of an
utterance.

iv. Discourse has a constitutive property as it constructs our reality through

explicit and implicit social and cultural assumptions it presents.

v. It influences and shapes our perceptions of the social world and seeks to
construct us in particular ways to perform various social roles which suit the
vested interests of the producer (s) of discourse (s).

vi. A genre, generally speaking, is considered to be a socially recognized way of

using language (Hyland, 2002).

vii. Language use is specific to the discourse community associated with a genre.
In order to investigate a particular discourse genre, not only the texts but also
their social contexts are considered.

viii. Interrelatedness of discourse communities and discourse genres is extensively

acknowledged, for instance, Hyland (2002: 121) argues, ‘by focusing on the
distinctive rhetorical practices of different communities, we can more clearly
see how language is used and how the social, cultural, and epistemological
characteristics of different disciplines are made real’.

ix. Rhetorical features of advertising discourses are creatively fashioned thereby

making it the most pervasive of all forms of discourses.

x. Advertising discourse is powerful, potent and persuasive.

xi. Discourse of politics is the chief representative of the discourses which

influence and shape people’s perceptions.

112
xii. Politicians employ various linguistic strategies to construct ‘reality’ not only
for themselves but for their political opponents.

xiii. The legalese is aimed at fostering clarity, consistency and accuracy to

minimize any potential risk of ambiguity and misunderstanding.

xiv. Literary discourse is marked by unique complexities of its kind based on its
adherence to literary traditions and conventions.

xv. Literary meanings cannot be produced in isolation, rather, a variety of

viewpoints, diverse perspectives, multiple voices and intersecting discourses
are mobilized together in the process of production of meaning.

113
 SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

1. What are the defining characteristics of a discourse community, and how do

these characteristics influence the way individuals communicate, share
knowledge, and establish a sense of belonging within the community?

2. How does discourse genre influence the structure, language, and

communication strategies used in different types of texts, and what role does
it play in shaping the expectations and understanding of the audience?

3. How do advertisers use linguistic and visual strategies to construct persuasive

messages and appeal to the emotions, desires, and aspirations of their target
audience?

4. How does political discourse influence public opinion, and what role does
language play in constructing and reinforcing political ideologies and
narratives?

5. What are the key features of legal language and discourse, and how does its
specialized use shape the interpretation and application of laws and
regulations within the legal system?

6. In what ways do literary devices and figurative language contribute to the

creation of meaning, emotion, and aesthetic appeal in literary texts, and how
do authors use discourse to convey their artistic vision and themes?

114
Unit–9

RESEARCH IN DISCOURSE

Written by: Dr Rashida Imran

Reviewed by: Prof Dr Sarwet Rasul

115
 CONTENTS
Page #
Overview .................................................................................................. 117

Objectives ................................................................................................ 117

9.1 Nature of Research in Discourse ..................................................... 118

9.2 Gender in Literary Discourse ........................................................... 119

9.3 Gender in Media Discourse ............................................................. 120

9.4 Gender and Constitutive Property of Discourse .............................. 123

Summary Points ....................................................................................... 125

Self-Assessment Questions ...................................................................... 126

References ................................................................................................ 127

116
 OVERVIEW

This unit highlights the nature of research in the broader field of discourse analysis.
It also focuses on documenting some past research studies conducted in the field to
explore potential possibilities of future research. Owing to the constraining element
of the unique diversity of the field, the unit exclusively focuses on the critical
investigation of gender and highlights how the diversity of research can be
conducted in a single domain from a variety of theoretical perspectives and
methodological frameworks.

OBJECTIVES

After reading this unit, you will be able to: -

i. assess the nature of research in the broader field of discourse analysis

ii. explore past research studies conducted in the field

iii. evaluate the usefulness of integrating research perspectives from interrelated

fields

iv. examine representations of gender in literary discourse

v. analyze gendered ideologies embedded in media discourse

117
Research in the field of discourse analysis has been as diverse and dynamic in
nature as the field itself. It has become more advanced, specialized and innovative
with the development of the field. Research studies have been consistently drawing
on a diverse range of theoretical perspectives and methodological frameworks.
Researchers have been particularly interested in examining dominant themes of
power, ideology and gender in a wide range of discourses and often integrating
them productively in the form of their invaluable scholarly contributions to the fluid
field of discourse studies (Holmes & Marra, 2010).

9.1 Nature of Research in Discourse

The field of discourse analysis is capable of examining a diverse range of spoken
and written discourses produced by various societal institutions and key
epistemological sites. Critical studies are not restricted to the analysis of spoken or
written discourses only but also their semiotic features, for instance, print and
electronic media products. Contemporary research focuses on social media
products too as it is gradually gaining momentum besides traditional media.
Therefore, research trends in this field are not only a manifestation of the constantly
growing and expanding nature of the field but also highlight its significance in
developing our understanding of the complex workings of language from a variety
of perspectives. Therefore, the investigations include a diverse range of data
collected from a range of key epistemological sites of significant importance as
well as various key genres of discourse.

The researchers, for instance, are particularly interested in media, legal, religious,
educational, political and literary discourses as well as cultural productions, etc.
and examine them from various perspectives. Many of these fields are
‘epistemologically key sites’ for analyzing language and its interrelatedness with
power and ideology in discourse. Discourse analysts may describe structuralist,
formalist, stylistic and functional aspects of various discourse genres and examine
how asymmetrical power relations, social and political inequalities and gendered
ideologies are embedded in their discursive practices and narrative structures. As
discussed previously, discourse analysts draw on a variety of theoretical
perspectives and discourse genres to investigate the issues of social, cultural and
political relevance. However, for the sake of in-depth discussion, only gendered
discourses are taken into consideration to reveal how a variety of approaches,
theories and methodologies can be integrated to unmask hidden androcentric
ideologies of a patriarchal social order.

118
9.2 Gender in Literary Discourse
Discourse analysis, primarily, focuses on gendered discourses to examine how gender
identities, roles and relations are constructed and manifested through the use of
language. Gendered ideologies are, exclusively, explored. For example, Sunderland
(2004) investigated the nature of gendered discourses presented in children’s fiction.
The data included a principled selection of award-winning books published for children
in the USA. She employed critical discourse analysis from the feminist perspective on
selected books of fiction as well as nonfiction which were a total of eight in number,
four books were winners of Newbery and four were winners of Caldecott awards from
1999 to 2002. She made an exhaustive discussion on the challenges faced by the
analysts while working with the literary discourse genre of fiction. Working from a
critical feminist perspective, she found evidence of gendered discourses and
interpretively identified four sets of gendered discourses in the selected book. The
selected books included evidence of different variations of such discourses. For
instance, she highlighted traditional and stereotypical gender discourses with clear
segregation of men's and women’s ideological positioning within and outside of the
household as well as their power relations. Secondly, she identified feminist discourses
as the evidence of resistance to patriarchal perceptions and practices, and/or that those
perceptions or practices were critically represented, and/or a female character was
presented progressively. Thirdly, she mentioned non-androcentric discourses which
showed deviations from masculinity and its associative values as the norm. Fourthly,
she highlighted subversive discourses which challenged and resisted the traditional and
stereotypical patriarchal gender ideology. Thus, she concluded that there were parallel
as well as competing gender discourses corresponding to larger societal structures.

Another important critical investigation dealing with the notion of gender

differences and their impact on the language used was conducted by Talbot (1995)
who examined verbs used in James Herbert’s novel ‘Liar’ on science fiction. She
used CDA in examining the text of the novel. She was principally concerned with
the differences in the nature, frequency and kinds of verbs used for describing
actions performed by male and female characters of the novel. She studied these
differences in terms of transitivity and intransitivity of verbs. She purposively
selected a scene from the novel as analyzing a complete novel was not manageable
without using some sort of computer software. She highlighted how the distribution
and use of transitive as well as intransitive verbs conveyed subtle messages aimed
at establishing how one person is principally responsible for ‘making things
happen’ and it was done in a gendered way. It is not surprising to predict that the
hero’s acts were most frequently represented through transitive verbs (e.g. reach,
take, grab, shield, etc.) while those of female characters were reflected by using
intransitive verbs (e.g. stand, watch, lean back, etc.). Thus, she concluded that the

119
discourse of the novel established and reinforced the status of men as performers
by involving them in the main actions whereas women were depicted as just
spectators and passive recipients of the actions performed by men.

In a significant study, Taylor and Stephens (1989) examined two picture book
versions of the Arcadian seal wife legend to explore their ideological positioning
either implied or aimed to inculcate besides the critical components of the narrative
structures. Each version preserves the ending where the seal wife leaves her
husband and children to return to the sea. These books were read to one hundred
and seventy-four children studying at three Sydney schools to assess their responses
to the values and attitudes depicted in the text. The children were primarily from
class sixth to eighth.

Some reading sessions were arranged to promote discussion about the important
focal points in the story. The children were finally instructed to produce some
written responses by rewriting the story. Changes made in the endings of the story
revealed a noticeable difference between boys and girls. The responses of girls
involved a reconstruction of the story strengthening mother-child bonding so that
they could live permanently underwater world. This reworking of the story
established the female desire for self-assertion and agency.

However, male participants rewrote the story by concluding it with the death of the
mother, ‘The inherent irony in this response, of course, is that rather than allow the
mother freedom and self-determination at the expense of her bond to the child, the
writer is prepared to kill the mother and lose her anyway’(p. 62). The data collected
from readers reading the Seal Wife stories highlighted some valuable insights about
the relationship between ideology, subject position and reader, ‘Readers not only
arrived at the same ‘story’ from each book but also inferred a common
‘significance’, that is, that the narrative was not just a sad story about a man and
the seal wife but about marital separation and power relationships. Eleven-year-
olds were as capable of inferring this as were thirteen- year- olds’ (p. 64). The study
concluded that there were gender differences in the rewriting of the story’s ending
and all the participants whether male or female correctly inferred the significance
of the story.

9.3 Gender in Media Discourse

Garnsey and Rees (1996) explored discourse about women’s participation and
opportunities in employment. They employed methods and techniques of linguistic
studies. They analyzed four documents connected to Opportunity 2000, a famous
business-led drive launched in the UK in 1991. They highlighted how a diverse

120
variety of linguistic strategies were employed to present inequality in employment
opportunities as an essential outcome of women’s lack of education and training.
Their approach can be categorized as critical linguistics since they examined the
use of various rhetorical strategies employed by actors to justify inequality. Those
strategies led to the reflection of the social reality of gender-discriminatory
employment opportunities and had significant political implications. The frequent
and repeated use of passive constructions in the documents represented women as
the ‘passive recipients’ of the campaign who had no active role to play in national
progress and development. They concluded that not only the discourse but the
linguistic strategies which supported it had very strong inferences for the readers
that women could not achieve the top positions in the hierarchy of organizations
‘largely as an outcome of their own shortcomings’ (p.1066).

Another important study which also focused on the constitutive property of

discourse in the construction and reflection of our ‘selves’ was of Marshall (1991)
who examined the depiction of parenthood in written texts. She employed a
‘discourse analytic approach’ to recognize ‘recurrent themes and constructions of
motherhood’ in a selective range of parent craft texts from 1979–88 which were
published in the UK. She identified themes and constructions, related to the idea of
motherhood, as ‘accounts’, which can be viewed as discourses. However, she did
not explicitly use the term ‘discourse’ for ‘accounts’, but she did refer to ‘missing
discourse’. From a critical perspective, Marshall (1991) argued, ‘Given that the
same phenomenon could be described in a number of ways, discourse analysis
examines social texts, both spoken and written to see which linguistic constructions
are selected and which are omitted (1991: 67). From her study, we derive a
perspective that a discourse analyst has to consider not only what is stated but also
what is not stated because it also plays a key role in the construction of ideologies
(Fairclough, 2003). The reference here is to traces of discourses, but it is logical to
extend this idea to missing discourses. Marshall identified various accounts which
included ‘motherhood as ultimate fulfilment’, ‘mother’s love as natural’ and
‘sharing the caring’. She also identified some missing discourse by which she
meant:
The ‘missing’ discourse is one that gives consideration to depression associated
with the social environment and changes in women’s lives as a consequence of
having children, including their financial situation, dissatisfaction with medical
intervention or giving up employment outside the home (1991: 82).

Marshall (1991) concluded her study by arguing that motherhood was constructed
by depicting its positive attributes at the expense of ignoring its negative impacts
on women’s health as well as psychological and emotional well-being. Thus,
discourse is capable of constituting whatever reality it depicts.

121
Lazar (2002) assessed the representations of motherhood as well as fatherhood in
an advertising campaign in Singapore by the government. It is generally argued that
advertisements in electronic and print media are persuasive in nature. The
government-led campaign also aimed at persuading educated Singaporeans, in
particular women, to marry and start families of more than one child to enhance the
population growth rate. Through the analysis, she identified not only the presence
but also negotiations between two competing discourses of gender relations which
were based on traditionalism and modernism. The presence of these discourses
reflected social and cultural changes prevalent in contemporary Singapore. By
using a critical Hallidayan framework, Lazar analyzed that in one of the
advertisements:
…the gendered nature of the mundane caregiving tasks the mother performs
is emphasized in contrast to what the father is shown doing at the same
time…whilst the mother [above] is represented as watching over the safety of
her young son at the beach by holding onto his float, the father, although also
represented as an actor, is engaged in an activity entirely different in nature
from the basic caregiving function performed by the mother. The father
performs a popular entertainer role whereby he plays with and makes funny
faces at the child… (2002: 122)

Lazar (2002), further, explored that the mother was concerned about the safety and
well-being of the child but was rarely the focus of the child’s attention. The child,
on the other hand, focused on the entertaining father. The advertisement through its
linguistic and semiotic features reflected that the mother’s activity was taken for
granted and an essential feature of her maternal nature which is deeply ingrained in
her psyche. Lazar claimed that the advertisement genre as well as the ‘discourse of
conservative gender relations’ constitutes the primary subject position offered to
women here as ‘consumers of all-consuming personal relationships’ (2002: 124).
Another important study by Lazar (2007) focused on the idea of post-feminism.
She examined the advertisements of body and beauty products collected from
English-language newspapers and magazines in her Singaporean context. She was
interested in examining the emergence of the discourse of popular post-feminism
interdiscursively constituted through the incorporation of elements of other
discourse genres. She used a multimodal approach to analyze discourse to develop
a holistic understanding of meaning-making practices. One of the scenes, depicted
in advertisements, involved the reclaiming of women’s physical desires and the
celebration of physical agency. Gill (2003) termed it as the re-sexualization of
women in contemporary popular culture as well as media, from a transformation of
the position of physical objectification to physical subjectification. Popular post-
feminism is both a media-friendly and consumer-oriented discourse indexing the
institutional reflexivity as well as reflective practices of popular culture and media
industries. In this particular case, the advertisements depict socially progressive

122
ideas of women’s empowerment, the assertion of their agency, and self-
determination deflecting second-wave feminist critique of the advertising industry
for causing oppression of women by establishing unrealistic standards of beauty
and social acceptability. The second-wave feminists, further, criticized the
advertising industry for sustaining and reinforcing exploitative and stereotypical
images of women. She asserted that such depictions of the female body were in
clash with the feminist cause and were quite damaging to it.

9.4 Gender and Constitutive Property of Discourse

With relevance to the constitutive property of discourse, Coates (1997) examined a
conversation between two friends and both were females. Her study focused on the
argument that the varied range of discourses we access ‘enable us to perform
different “selves”; which can be marked as ‘self-positioning (p. 291)’. Her claim
was linked to the fundamental property of discourse as both constructor and
reflector of our ‘self’ and our social reality. Coates, in her research, identified two
competing but simultaneous discourses of maternity. The first was the ‘dominant’
discourse, ‘which communicates that children are “marvellous”, and as part of this
all mothers take pride in their children’s achievements’. The second, ‘alternative’
discourse ‘asserts that not all children are likeable and…it is not compulsory for
adults to like all children’ (1997: 294). Coates argued that this ‘alternative
discourse’ was an example of a subversive discourse, contrary to the common
expectations as both friends were mothers and were contesting and negotiating the
idea of women and in particular mothers as ‘loving, caring, nurturing beings for
whom having children is the ultimate experience of their lives’ (p. 294). Both
friends were actively engaged in producing this competing discourse of maternity
and did not behave like the ‘conditioned’ subjects of the dominant discourse
celebrating the notion of motherhood as ultimate fulfilment. Thus, she concluded
her study by arguing that discourse constitutes our ‘selves’ and also reflects our
social reality which is both constructed and reflected in discourse.

Gender differences manifested in the use of language have been a focus of scholarly
attention in the field of discourse and gender studies for a significant period. Many
researchers investigated this critical notion from various perspectives, for example,
Mills (2002) conducted a critically acclaimed work on language and gender by
integrating theoretical work on the aspect of gender from a feminist perspective
with a new theorization of linguistic politeness. Her fundamental argument was to
employ a more realistic model for investigating the interrelationship of gender and
politeness. Her study is based on an anecdotal incident which occurred at her
university’s departmental party involving Mills, her supervisee and a new male
colleague who was a poet. Mills argued that using anecdotal evidence could be

123
problematic owing to its subjectivity, but Cameron (1998) proposed that anecdotes
may “condense a great deal of taken-for-granted cultural wisdom into a very small
amount of surface production” (Cameron 1998:447). Mills examined a single turn-
taking from her conversation with the male colleague. After formal greetings and
opening remarks, she asked him about the nature of his poetry. To her surprise,
instead of talking about his poetic subject, he asked Mills to name six poets.

Mills was astonished to witness his response which was highly offensive since it
entailed that she was not familiar with poetry as a literary genre. However, Mills,
despite his rude response to her genuine query, tried to repair the damage caused to
the talk. But the male colleague, on the other hand, started making offensive
remarks. Consequently, the conversation ended abruptly as was expected because
of his rude behaviour. It turned out to be a subject of heated discussion in the
department but he never realized his mistake of insulting a female colleague who
was his senior in the departmental hierarchy. Mills, further, exposed that not only
she but also, the male colleague misperceived her communicative intention. He held
himself in high regard and assumed his fame as a poet, but Mills’ query challenged
his claim and hurt his self-esteem since her question indicated that she did not know
anything about him. Mills concluded that the analysis of politeness requires various
modifications: firstly, we need to examine politeness over longer stretches of talk
instead of a single turn-taking. Secondly, it should be examined within the
perspective of a ‘Community of Practice’, rather than simply a product of individual
speakers. Finally, she concluded, that there might be socio-cultural variations in the
treatment of politeness so such variations may also be accounted for in the analysis.

124
 SUMMARY POINTS

i. Research in the field of discourse analysis has been as diverse and dynamic
in nature as the field itself.

ii. It has become more advanced, specialized and innovative with the
development of the field. Research studies have been consistently drawing on
a diverse range of theoretical perspectives and methodological frameworks.

iii. Researchers have been particularly interested in examining dominant themes

of power, ideology and gender in a wide range of discourses and often
integrating them productively in the form of their invaluable scholarly
contributions to the fluid field of discourse studies (Holmes & Marra, 2010).

iv. The field of discourse analysis is capable of examining a diverse range of

spoken and written discourses produced by various societal institutions and
key epistemological sites.

v. The researchers, for instance, are particularly interested in media, legal,

religious, educational, political and literary discourses as well as cultural
productions, etc. and examine them from various perspectives.

vi. Sunderland (2004) investigated the nature of gendered discourses presented

in children’s fiction. The data included a principled selection of award-
winning books published for children in the USA.

vii. Another important critical investigation dealing with the notion of gender
differences and their impact on the language used was conducted by Talbot
(1995) who examined verbs used in James Herbert’s novel ‘Liar’ on science
fiction.

viii. She used CDA in examining the text of the novel. She was principally concerned
with the differences in the nature, frequency and kinds of verbs used for
describing actions performed by male and female characters of the novel.

ix. Garnsey and Rees (1996) explored discourse about women’s participation
and opportunities in employment. They employed methods and techniques of
linguistic studies.

x. They analyzed four documents connected to Opportunity 2000, a famous

business-led drive launched in the UK in 1991. They highlighted how a
diverse variety of linguistic strategies were employed to present inequality in

125
 employment opportunities as an essential outcome of women’s lack of
education and training.

xi. Their approach can be categorized as critical linguistics since they examined the
use of various rhetorical strategies employed by actors to justify inequality.

xii. Another important study which also focused on the constitutive property of
discourse in the construction and reflection of our ‘selves’ was of Marshall
(1991) who examined the depiction of parenthood in written texts.

xiii. With relevance to the constitutive property of discourse, Coates (1997)

examined a conversation between two friends and both were females.

xiv. Her study focused on the argument that the varied range of discourses we
access ‘enable us to perform different “selves”; which can be marked as ‘self-
positioning (p. 291)’.

xv. Mills (2002) conducted a critically acclaimed work on language and gender
by integrating theoretical work on the aspect of gender from a feminist
perspective with a new theorization of linguistic politeness.

SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
1. How does the choice of discourse analysis methodology influence the
interpretation and findings of research in social sciences?

2. Provide examples to illustrate the impact of different analytical approaches

on understanding gendered societal norms and power dynamics.

3. Analyze the portrayal of gender roles and identities in a specific literary text
or genre. How does discourse analysis reveal underlying ideologies and
power dynamics regarding masculinity and femininity?

4. Examine the language and visual representations of gender in a specific media

genre, like advertisements and comment on how do discursive practices
reinforce or challenge traditional gender stereotypes?

5. Compare the representation of gender in classic versus contemporary literary

texts of your choice using discourse analysis. How have discursive strategies
evolved over time and what do these changes reveal about shifting cultural
norms and perceptions of gender roles in literary works?

126
 REFERENCES

Agger, B. (1998). Critical social theories: An introduction. Boulder, Colorado:

Westview Press.

Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In Lenin and

philosophy, and other essays (pp. 121–173). New York: Monthly Review
Press.

Angermuller, J. (2014). Poststructuralist discourse analysis: Subjectivity in

enunciative pragmatics.

Bakhtin, M. M., & Holquist, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays.
Austin: University of Texas Press.

Baxter, J. (2003). Positioning gender in discourse: A feminist methodology.

Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bazerman, C. (2004). ‘Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts’, in C.

Bazerman and P. Prior (eds), What Writing Does and How it does it: An
Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 83–96.

Beauvior, D. S. (1974). The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books.

Bowen, S. P., & Wyatt, N. (Eds.). (1993). Transforming visions: Feminist critiques
in communication studies. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2003). Language and identity, in A. Duranti (ed.), A

Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble, feminist theory, and psychoanalytic discourse. In

L. J. Nicholson (Ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism. London: Routledge.

Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of "sex". New York:
Routledge.

Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New
York: Routledge.

Butler, J. P. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of "sex". New
York: Routledge.

127
Byrd, P. and Coxhead, A. (2010). On the other hand: Lexical bundles in academic
writing and in the teaching of EAP. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL.

Cameron, D. (1990). The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader. New York:

Rutledge.

Cameron, D. (1992). Feminism and linguistic theory (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.

Cameron, D. (1997). Performing gender identity. Young men’s talk & the
construction of heterosexual masculinity. In S. Johnson & U. H. Meinhof
(Eds.), Language and masculinity (pp. 47–64). Blackwell: Oxford.

Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London: SAGE.

Cameron, D. (2006). Theorising the female voice in public contexts. In J. Baxter

(Ed.), Speaking out: The female voice in public contexts (pp. 2–20).
Basingstoke, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Celce-Murcia, M. (1997), Describing and teaching English grammar with reference

to written discourse, in T. Miller (ed.), Functional approaches to written text:
Classroom applications. Washington, DC: United States Information
Agency.

Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (2007). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking

critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press.

Coats, J. (1997). Competing discourses of femininity. In H. Kotthof & R. Wodak

(Eds.), Communicating gender in context (p. 285–314). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.

Coates, J. (1996). Women talk: Conversation between women friends. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Du Gay, P. (1996). Consumption and identity at work. London [etc.: Sage.

Gender as Community-Based Practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 22,

461–490. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.21.1.461

Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London:

Continuum.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.

128
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language.

London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). London, Eng: Pearson
Education Limited.

Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. Dijk (Ed.),
Discourse as social interaction: Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary
introduction, vol. 2 (pp. 258–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fries, P. H. (2002), The flow of information in a written text, in P. H. Fries,

M. Cummings, D.

Garnsey, E., & Rees, B. (1996). Discourse and enactment: Gender inequality in
text and context. Human Relations, 49, 1041–1064.

Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd

ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New
York: International Publishers.

Halliday, M. A. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of

language and meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London:

Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1971). Language in a social perspective London: Edward

Arnold

Harris, Z. (1952). Linguistic transformations for information retrieval, in

Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information,
Volume 2. Washington, DC: NAS-WRC.

Hasan, R. (1989a). The structure of a text, in M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hasan,

Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic
perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

129
Hasan, R. (1989b), The texture of a text, in M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hasan,
Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic
perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hyland, K. (2002a). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic

writing, Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–112.

Hyland, K. (2002b). Options of identity in academic writing, ELT Journal, 56(4),

351–8.

Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2010). Femininity, feminism and gendered discourse. In
J. Holmes & M. Marra (Eds.), Femininity, feminism and gendered discourse:
A selected and edited collection of papers from the fifth International
Language and Gender Association Conference, IGALA5 (pp. 1–18).
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.

Hooks, B. (1981). Ain't I a woman: Black women and feminism. Boston, MA: South
End Press.

Hooks, B. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist – thinking black. London: Sheba
Feminist Publishers.

Hooks, B. (1994, January). Sisters of the yam: Feminist opportunism. Z Magazine,

pp. 42–44.

Hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. Cambridge: MA:

South End Press.

Hughes, R. and McCarthy, M. (1998). From sentence to discourse: Discourse

grammar and English language teaching, TESOL Quarterly, 32, 263–87.

Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction: Towards ethnographies of communication,

American Anthropologist, New Series, 66 (Part 2: The Ethnography of
Communication), 1–34.

Jansen, S. C. (2002). Critical communication theory: power, media, gender and

technology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lazar, M. M. (2002). Consuming personal relationships: The achievement of

feminine self-identity through other-centeredness. In L. Litosseliti & J.

130
 Sunderland (Eds.), Gender identity and discourse analysis (pp. 111–128).
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Pub.

Lazar, M. M. (2005). Feminist critical discourse analysis: Gender, power, and

ideology in discourse. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lazar, M. M. (2005). Politicizing gender in discourse: feminist critical discourse

analysis as political perspective and praxis. In M. M. Lazar (Ed.), Feminist
critical discourse analysis: Gender, power, and ideology in discourse
(pp. 1–28). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lazar, M. M. (2007). Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Articulating a Feminist

Discourse Praxis1. Critical Discourse Studies, 4(2), 141–164.
doi:10.1080/17405900701464816

Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual politics. Discourse and social dynamics. London:

Taylor and Francis

Lewis, J. (1981). Women, lost and found: The impact of feminism on history. In S.
DALE (Ed.), Men's studies modified: The impact of feminism on the academic
disciplines. Elmsford: NY: Pergamon Press.

Lindsey, L. L. (2011). Gender roles a sociological perspective. New Delhi: PHI

Learning Private Limited.

Lockwood and W. Spruidell (eds), Relation and Functions Within and Across
Language. London: Continuum.

Lorber, J. (1997). The variety of feminisms and their contributions to gender

equality. Oldenburg: BIS.

Lupton, D. (1992). Discourse analysis: a new methodology for understanding the

ideologies of health and illness. Australian Journal of Public Health, 16(2),
145–150. doi:10.1111/j.1753-6405.1992.tb00043.x

Marshall, H. (1991). The social construction of motherhood: an analysis of

childcare and parenting manuals. In A. Phoenix, A. Woollett, & E. Lloyd
(Eds.), Motherhood: Meanings, practices, and ideologies (pp. 66–85).
London: Sage Publications.

Martin, J. R. (2001). Language, register and genre, in A. Burns and C. Coffin (eds),
(2001), Analyzing English in a Global Context. London: Routledge.

131
Mills, S. (2002). Rethinking politeness, impoliteness and gender identity. In L.
Litosseliti & J. Sunderland (Eds.), Gender identity and discourse analysis (pp.
69–89). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Pub.

Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mills, S., & McElhinny, S. B. (2007). Launching studies of gender and language in
the early 21st century. Gender and Language, 1(1), 1–13: SAGE.

Mills, S. (1997). Discourse. London: Routledge.

Mitchell, T. F. (1957). The language of buying and selling in Cyrenaica, Hesperis,

44, 31–71. Reprinted in T. F. Mitchell

Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural fFlows. London:

Routledge.

Pennycook, A. (2011). Roundtable on language and identity. Symposium on

Language and Identity across Modes of Communication, 22 November,
University of Sydney.

Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of

social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Short, M. H. (1989). Reading, analysing and teaching literature. Harlow:

Longman.

Showalter E. (1997). Towards a feminist poetics. In K. M. Newton (Ed.), Twentieth

century literary theory: A reader. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Stephens, J. (1992). Language and ideology in children's fiction. London:

Longman.

Stephens, J. (1996). Linguistics and stylistics. In P. Hunt (Ed.), International

companion encyclopedia of children's literature. USA: Routledge.

Sunderland, J. (2002). From the household to the factory: Sex discrimination in the
Guatemalan labor force. New York: Human Rights Watch.

Sunderland, J. (2004). Gendered discourses. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

132
Sunderland, J. (2010). Language, gender and children's fiction. London:
Continuum.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Talbot, M. (2005). Choosing to refuse to be a victim: ‘Power feminism’ and the

intertextuality of victimhood and choice. In M. M. Lazar (Ed.), Feminist
critical discourse analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse
(pp. 167–180). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Talbot, M. M. (1995). Fictions at work: Language and social practice in fiction.

London: Longman.

Talbot, M. M. (2010). Language and gender (2nd ed.). Malden: Blackwell

Publishers Inc.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics.

London: Longman

Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Vetter, E., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2000). Methods of text
and discourse analysis. London: Sage.

Van Dijk, A. T. (1993). Racism in stories. In Narrative and social control

(pp. 121–142). Newbury Park: CA: Sage.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Story comprehension: An introduction. Poetics, 9(1–3),

1–21. doi:10.1016/0304-422x(80)90010-8kress

van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton,

& D.

Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 466-485).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Wang, W. (2007). Genre across languages and cultures: Newspaper

Commentaries in China and Australia. Saarbruecken, Germany: VDM
Verlag Dr. Müller.

133
Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (1995). Introduction. In S. Wilkinson & C. Kitzinger
(Eds.), Feminism and discourse: Psychological perspectives (pp. 1–9).
London: Sage.

Wodak, R. (2006). critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In J. Ostoman

& J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 50-70). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London:
SAGE.

Wolcott, H. F. (1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira

Press.

Wollstonecraft, M. (1792). Vindication of the rights of woman. London: OUP.

Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for
studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Woods, N. (2006). Describing discourse. London: Routledge

_____[ ]_____

134
 Department of English
Faculty of Social Sciences & Humanities
ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY