Toward An Analysis of Discourse

Definition of Discourse
1. Widdowson (1984): discourse is a communicative process manifested through
interaction.
The definition can be understood to say that discourse is a process of
communication. In other words, there should be “something” to be communicated;
there should also be the giver or sender and the receiver of that particular “thing”,
and there should be an interaction between the sender and the receiver.

2. Gumperz, a discourse is not only a kind of communication, but also a routine. It

should be a communication that is part of our routines.
Every kind of communication has its structure.
For example:
- Structure in a spoken communication. Opening, exchange information, and
closing
- Narrative text: Orientation, complication, resolution

3. Fairclough (1992) identifies that in social theory and analysis, discourse has been
used to refer to different ways of structuring areas of knowledge and social practice.
Discourse has also been viewed in different perspectives. It, among others, has
been used to refer to different types of language used in different sorts of social
situations, such as newspaper discourse, advertising discourse, classroom discourse,
the discourse of medical consultation (Faircluogh, 1992: 3).
Discourse is the highest level in language plane. It is above lexicogrammar and
phonology. That is why discourse is also considered to be unit of language beyond
sentence-level.
Discourse Analysis and the Scope of Study
1. Discourse analysis is the examination of language use by members of a speech
community. It deals with Natural communication.
2. It involves looking at both language form and language function.
3. It includes the study of both spoken interaction and written texts.
4. It identifies linguistic features that characterize different genres as well as social
and cultural factors that aid in our interpretation and understanding of different
texts and types of talk. Every text has its own social and cultural contents and
constraints.
5. A discourse analysis of written texts might include a study of topic development
and cohesion across the sentences
6. An analysis of spoken language might focus on these aspects plus turn taking
practices, opening and closing sequences of social encounters, or narrative
structure.

System of Discourse analysis

A. System of Discourse analysis

Flowerdew identified four approaches to discourse analysis, including genre analysis,
corpus-based studies, contrastive rhetoric, and ethnographic/naturalistic approaches. In
the meantime, Edmondson (1981: 54-74) identified four systems of analysis of spoken
discourse, i.e. speech acts sequences, tagmemic model, and rank-scale model; while
Suherdi (2006), after comparing various approaches, proposes the use of systemiotic
approach to classroom discourse analysis.

1. Genre analysis. Starting with works in 1960s on formal feature of broad

language varieties and register
2. Contrastive rhetoric which is the study of the similarities and differences
between two languages and how the influence of the L1 may affect the way
individuals express themselves in the L2
 3. Corpus-based studies which are concerned with the collection, structuring,
and analyzing large amounts of discourse, usually with the assistance of
computers. Processing includes the operations of quantifying (counting the
number of words or phrases), concordancing (producing lists of given linguistic
items with sufficient context to determine syntactic, semantic, and paradigmatic
properties), and parsing (syntactic analysis). Avalaible works include, among
others, Sinclair and Collin Cobuild project (Sinclair, 1991).
4. Ethnography, or more broadly, naturalistically influenced approaches view texts
as only one of many features of social situation, which includes equally the
values, roles, assumptions, attitudes, and pattern of behavior of the participants,
or texts producers or receivers

Edmondson (1981: 54-74), as has been mentioned earlier, identified four systems of
analysis of spoken discourse, i.e. speech acts sequences, tagmemic model, and rank-
scale model.

B. Sinclair and Coulthard’s Framework of Analysis

1. The rules
Various frameworks for modeling classroom interaction have been proposed, most
notably by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975, 1992) who analyze classroom discourse in
terms of acts, moves, exchanges, transactions and lessons.

The basic element of dialogue analysis is a move: a statement, question, answer,

command, etc. We don’t use these categories however, rather:
 offer-information (statements and answers): A rectangle has four sides.
 offer-action (offer): I can do that!
 demand-information (question): What is a cube?
 demand-action (command): Please be quiet everyone!
An exchange is a sequence of moves which together construct a single proposition
(information) or proposal (for action).

A transaction is a sequence of exchanges to perform some task in the classroom.

Most typically, there is a boundary marker to indicate a new transaction is beginning:
“Right”, “Ok”, “Now”, “continuing on”, etc. Often however, this will be marked just by
intonation/volume (prominent intonation on the first words, perhaps with higher
volume). The teacher will typically begin with a number of informing exchanges
(initiate:give-information). This may be followed by some directing exchanges (e.g., Get
out your book and look at page 17). Finally, the teacher will use some eliciting
exchanges to ask the students questions. There may be a boundary marker to finish the
transaction (e.g., “Ok, enough of that”).

A lesson is a set of transactions. It will often correspond to a class period, but not that
a lesson plan may extend over several classes, or a new lesson may begin in the middle
of a class.

A turn is simply the sequences of moves by a speaker during which the other
participant(s) do not speak. Turns are not co-extensive with exchanges, as a turn may
begin with a response to one exchange, and continue with the initiation of another.

C. Barry’s Framework of Analysis

K1 For the admission of knowledge of the information by the primary knower and
the consequent stamping of the information with primary knower’s authority
K2 For the secondary knower’s indication of the state of his own knowledge in
relation to the information
Dk1 For delaying K1
K2f For following up K2