DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Ricky Eka Sanjaya, Ph.D.

Introduction
Discourse analysis (DA) is a broad field of study that draws some of its
theories and methods of analysis from disciplines such as linguistics,
sociology, philosophy and psychology. More importantly, discourse
analysis has provided models and methods of engaging issues that
emanate from disciplines such as education, cultural studies,
communication and so on. The vast nature of discourse analysis makes it
impossible for us to discuss all that the reader needs to know about it in
an introductory work of this nature. However, the chief aim of this chapter
is to introduce the reader to some of the basic terms and concepts involved
in discourse analysis. The reader is also introduced to some of
the approaches to linguistic study of discourse.

What is Discourse Analysis?

The term ‘discourse analysis’ was first used by the sentence linguist, Zellig
Harris in his 1952 article entitled ‘Discourse Analysis’. According to him,
discourse analysis is a method for the analysis of connected speech or
writing, for continuing descriptive linguistics beyond the limit of a simple
sentence at a time (Harris 1952). Meanwhile, scholars have attested to the
difficulty in coming up with a comprehensive and acceptable definition for
discourse analysis. However, a way to simplify the attempt to define
discourse analysis is to say that discourse analysis is ‘the analysis of
discourse’. The next question, therefore, would be ‘what is discourse?’
 Discourse can simply be seen as language in use (Brown & Yule
1983; Cook 1989). It therefore follows that discourse analysis is the
analysis of language in use. By ‘language in use’, we mean the set of
norms, preferences and expectations which relate language to context.
Discourse analysis can also be seen as the organization of language above
the sentence level. The term ‘text’ is, sometimes, used in place of
‘discourse’. The concern of discourse analysis is not restricted to the
study of formal properties of language; it also takes into consideration
what language is used for in social and cultural contexts. Discourse
analysis, therefore, studies the relationship between language (written,
spoken – conversation, institutionalized forms of talk) and the contexts
in which it is used. What matters is that the text is felt to be coherent.
Guy Cook (1989:6-7) describes discourse as language in use or language
used to communicate something felt to be coherent which may, or
may not correspond to a correct sentence or series of correct sentences.
Discourse analysis, therefore, according to him, is the search for
what gives discourse coherence. He posits that discourse does not
have to be grammatically correct, can be anything from a grunt or
simple expletive, through short conversations and scribbled notes, a novel
or a lengthy legal case. What matters is not its conformity to rules,
but the fact that it communicates and is recognized by its receivers
as coherent. Similarly, Stubbs (1983:1) perceives discourse analysis
as ‘a conglomeration of attempts to study the organization of
language and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as
conversational exchanges or written text.’ Again, we affirm that what
matters in the study of discourse, whether as language in use or as
language beyond the clause, is that language is organized in a
coherent manner such that it communicates something to its receivers.
Discourse analysis evolved from works in different disciplines in the
1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, anthropology,
psychology and sociology. Some of the scholars and the works that either
gave birth to, or helped in the development of discourse analysis include
the following: J.L. Austin whose How to Do Things with Words
(1962) introduced the popular social theory, speech-act theory. Dell
Hymes (1964) provided a sociological perspective with the study of
speech. John Searle (1969) developed and improved on the work of Austin.
The linguistic philosopher, M.A.K. Halliday greatly influenced the
linguistic properties of discourses (e.g. Halliday 1961), and in the 1970s
he provided sufficient framework for the consideration of the functional
approach to language (e.g. Halliday 1973). H.P. Grice (1975) and
Halliday (1978) were also influential in the study of language as
social action reflected in the formulation of conversational maxims
and the emergence of social semiotics. The work of Sinclair and
Coulthard (1975) also developed a model for the description of teacher-
pupil talk. The study grew to be a
major approach to discourse. Some work on conversation analysis also
aided the development of discourse analysis. Some of such works from the
ethnomethodological tradition include the work of Gumperz and Hymes
1972. Some other works influential in the study of conversational norms,
turn-taking, and other aspects of spoken interaction include Goffman
(1976, 1979), and Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974). The brief review
above shows that the approach to discourse is anything but uniform, so
below is an attempt to provide a more systematic insight into some of the
approaches to discourse.

3.0 Approaches to Discourse

The term ‘discourse analysis’ has been employed by people in a variety of
academic disciplines and departments to describe what they do, how they
do it, or both. Barbara Johnstone (2002: 1) observes that while many of
these people have training in general linguistics, some identify themselves
primarily as linguists, yet others identify themselves primarily with fields
of study as varied and disparate as anthropology, communication, cultural
studies, psychology or education among others. This shows that, under
the label discourse analysis, so many people do their own things in their
own ways, relying on methods and approaches that may be peculiar or
relevant to their disciplines or fields of study. However, the only thing all
these endeavours seem to have in common is their interest in studying
language and its effects. Consequently, Deborah Schiffrin (1994:5)
recognizes discourse analysis as one of the vast, but also one of the least
defined areas in linguistics. She points out that one of the reasons is that
our understanding of discourse is based on scholarship from a number of
academic disciplines that are actually very different from one another.
Another is that discourse analysis draws not just from disciplines such as
linguistics, anthropology, sociology and philosophy, from which models
and methods for analyzing discourse first developed, but also the fact that
such models and methods have been employed and extended in engaging
problems that emanate from other academic domains as communication,
social psychology, and artificial intelligence. Schiffrin in her Approaches to
Discourse (1994) discusses and compares some of the different approaches
to the linguistic analysis of discourse: speech act theory, interactional
sociolinguistics, ethnography of communication, pragmatics, conversation
analysis, and variation analysis. This part of the work, therefore,
summarizes the approaches to linguistic analysis of discourse identified by
Schiffrin. It aims at introducing the reader to some of the linguistic
approaches to discourse that are available to the analyst. Thus, the reader
is by this exercise (the synopsis presented below), encouraged to see
Schiffrin (1994) and other related texts for more on these approaches.
Speech Act Theory
The Speech Act Theory was first formulated by the philosopher John
Austin (1962) and was later developed and presented more
systematically by another philosopher John Searle (1969, 1975). The
theory proceeds from the assumption that language is used to perform
actions hence its main concern is on how meaning and action are related
to language. John Austin and John Searle believe that language is not
just used to describe the world, but to perform a range of other actions
that can be indicated in the performance of the utterance itself. For
example, ‘I promise to marry you’ and ‘I sentence you to death’ perform
the functions of promising and sentencing respectively. However, an
utterance may perform more than one act at a time as in: ‘Can you
pass the salt?’ which can be understood as both a question and a
request. But one can hardly understand the utterance as a question to
test the physical ability of the hearer but as a request to perform the
action requested. This kind of utterance is known as an indirect speech
act because its illocutionary force is an outcome of the relationship
between two different speech acts. Schriffin notes that speech act
approach to discourse focuses upon knowledge of underlying conditions
for production and interpretation of acts through words. The context of
the utterance helps the hearer in making sense of an indirect speech
act by separating the multiple functions of utterances from one
another. The literal meanings of words and the contexts in which they
occur may interact in our knowledge of the conditions underlying the
realization of acts and interpretation of acts. She further contends that
although speech act theory was not originally designed as a means of
analyzing discourse, some of its insights have been used by many scholars
to help solve problems basic to discourse analysis. This includes problems
of indirect speech act, multifunctionality and context dependence as in the
last example above. Cook (1989) also acknowledges that speech act theory
enables us to see how meaning has become more and more slippery.
Indirection, according to him, is something which human beings exploit to
their advantage. It enables them to avoid committing themselves and to
retreat in front of danger; and this is one of the major reasons why people
speak indirectly (40).

Interactional Sociolinguistic
The approach to discourse known as ‘interactional sociolinguistics’ is
essentially derived from the works of the anthropologist John Gumperz
and the sociologist Erving Goffman. The approach, according to Schiffrin,
has the most diverse disciplinary origins …it is based in anthropology,
sociology, and linguistics, and shares the concerns of all three fields with
culture, society, and language. The contribution to interactional
sociolinguistics made by John Gumperz provides an understanding of how
people may share grammatical knowledge of a language, but differently
contextualize what is said – such that very different messages are
produced and understood. The contribution made by Erving Goffman, on
the other hand, provides a description of how language is situated in
particular circumstances of life, and how it reflects, and adds, meaning
and structure in those circumstances. Schiffrin identified the interaction
between self and the other, and context, as the two central issues
underlying the work of Gumperz and Goffman. Thus, while the work of
Gumperz focuses on how interpretations of context are critical to the
communication of information and to another’s understanding of a
speaker’s intention and/or discourse strategy, that of Goffman focuses on
how the organization of social life (in institutions, interactions, and so on)
provides contexts in which both the conduct of self and communication
with another can be ‘made sense of’ (both by those co-present in an
interaction and by outside analysts). Schiffrin further contends that the
work of both scholars also provides a view of language as indexical to a
social world: for Gumperz, language is an index to the background
cultural understandings that provide hidden – but nevertheless critical -
knowledge about how to make inferences about what is meant through an
utterance; for Goffman, language is one of a number of symbolic
resources that provide an index to the social identities and relationships
being continually constructed during interaction.
Interactional sociolinguistics provides an approach to discourse that
focuses upon situated meaning and scholars taking this approach
combine the ideas of the anthropologist John Gumperz and the sociologist
Erving Goffman. According to Schiffrin, what Gumperz contributes to this
approach is a set of tools that provide a framework within which to analyze
the use of language during interpersonal communication. He views
language as a socially and culturally constructed symbol system that both
reflects and creates macro-level social meaning and micro-level
interpersonal meanings. Goffman’s work also focuses upon situated
knowledge, the self, and social context in a way that complements
Gumperz’s focus on situated inference: Goffman provides a sociological
framework for describing and understanding the form and meaning of the
social and interpersonal contexts that provide presuppositions for the
interpretation of meaning. In all, interactional sociolinguistics views
discourse as a social interaction in which the emergent construction and
negotiation of meaning is facilitated by the use of language. The work of
Goffman forces structural attention to the contexts in which language is
used: situations, occasions, encounters, participation frameworks, and so
on, have forms and meanings that are partially created and/or sustained
by language. Similarly, language is patterned in ways that reflect those
contexts of use. As Schiffrin puts it, language and context co-constitute
one another: language contextualizes and is contextualized, such that
language does not just function “in” contexts, language also forms and
provides context. Social interaction is identified as an instance of context.
Language, culture, and society are grounded in interaction: they stand in a
reflexive relationship with the self, the other, and the self-other
relationship, and it is out of these mutually constitutive relationships that
discourse is created (Schiffrin, 1994).

The Ethnography of Communication

The Ethnography of Communication, also known as Ethnography of
Speaking, was developed by Dell Hymes in a series of papers written in the
1960s and 1970s (many of which are collected in his Foundations
in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach [1974]). Hymes argues
that Chomsky’s definition of competence is too narrow, and that an
adequate approach must distinguish and investigate four aspects of
competence. The four aspects include (i) systematic potential (to
what extent is something not yet realized), (ii) appropriateness (to
what extent is something suitable and effective in some context), (iii)
occurrence (the extent to which something is done), and (iv) feasibility
(the extent to which something is possible). In essence, therefore,
this term is a critical expansion of Noam Chomsky’s concept of
competence which is only concerned with the linguistic capabilities
of the ideal speaker-hearer. Chomsky’s concept backgrounds the
social function of language. Hymes’ Ethnography of Communication is
concerned with the analysis of language use in its socio-cultural setting.
This approach is based on the premise that the meaning of an utterance
can be understood only in relation to the ‘speech event’ or
‘communicative event,’ in which it is embedded (Hymes 1962). The
character of such speech events (for example, a sermon) is culturally
determined.
Ethnography of speaking relates to discourse analysis through the
ethnographic approach where conversational inferences play a key role:
participants link the content of an utterance and other verbal, vocal, and
non-vocal cues with background knowledge. Hymes argues further that
any description of ‘ways of speaking’ will need to provide data along four
interrelated dimensions which are: the linguistic resources available to the
speaker; the rules of interpretation; supra-sentential structuring; and the
norms which govern different types of interaction.
Hymes tries to define the concepts of speech community, speech
styles and speech events in relation to the ethnography of speaking.
According to him, a speech community is any group which shares both
linguistic resources and rules for interaction and interpretation. On
speech styles, he says it is more useful to see a speech community as
comprising a set of styles (style, here, is seen as a mode of doing
something). The speech styles also include the consideration of registers.
Style further considers the stylistic features (stylistic modes and
structures). It is a concept which also further accounts for variation
according to author, setting or topic but not as a general basis of
description.
Hymes believes that speech events are the largest units for which
one can discover linguistic structure and are thus not coterminous with
the situation. Speech events can occur in a non-verbal context. Several
speech events can occur successively or simultaneously in the same
situation. One of the ultimate aims of the ethnography of speaking is an
exhaustive list of the speech acts and speech events of a particular speech
community. For every speech event, Hymes holds the view that the
ethnographer initially provides data which he reduced to the acronym,
SPEAKING.

S setting: the time and space within which speech events occur –
physical circumstances
P participants: the speaker and the listener (or the addresser and the
addressee) in a speech situation
E ends: the goal/ purpose of the speaker
A acts: the actual form and content of what is said by the speaker (i.e
message form and content)
K key: the tone/manner of the message
I instrumentalities: the channel (verbal, nonverbal, physical)
through which the message is passed across
N norms of interaction and interpretation: the tradition – specific
properties attached to speaking/interpretation of norms within
cultural belief systems
G genre: the style (textual categories)

The emphasis of the ethnography of communication is based on the

analysis of situated talk. Hymes, therefore, places emphasis on the
interpretation of verbal strategies.

Pragmatics
Pragmatics as an approach to discourse is chiefly concerned with three
concepts (meaning, context, communication) that are themselves
extremely vast. The scope of pragmatics is so wide that it faces definitional
dilemmas similar to those faced by discourse analysis. Earlier studies on
pragmatics defined it as a branch of semiotics, the study of signs, but
contemporary discussions of pragmatics all take the relationship of sign to
their user to be central to pragmatics. Jacob Mey (2001) defines
pragmatics as the study of the use of language in human communication
as determined by the conditions of society. Schiffrin (1994) focuses on
Gricean pragmatics, particularly his ideas about speaker meaning and
the cooperative principle, as useful approach to discourse analysis. It is
an approach that focuses on meaning in context. The Gricean
pragmatics or theory has been described as “the hub of
pragmatics research” (Schiffrin, 1994:190) hence its choice as a
good demonstration of pragmatic approach to discourse analysis.
Speaker meaning allows a distinction between semantic meaning and
pragmatic meaning, and also suggests a particular view of human
communication that focuses on intentions. Grice separates natural
meaning from non-natural meaning. While the former is said to be
devoid of human intentionality the latter is roughly equivalent to
intentional communication. A critical feature of non-natural meaning is
that it is intended to be recognized in a particular way by a recipient.
Implicit in this understanding is a second intention - the intention that
a recipient recognize the speaker’s communicative intention. Grice’s
framework allows the speaker meaning to be relatively free of
conventional meaning. It shows that what the speaker intends to
communicate need not be related to conventional meanings at all, and not
conventionally attached or related to the words being used. Mey (2001:48)
affirms that logical and semantic criteria are not sufficient to comprehend
a speaker’s intention. Rather, knowledge of the persons involved in the
situation, their background and the context have to be taken into account.
The Gricean pragmatics, therefore, provides a way to analyze the inference
of a speaker meaning: how hearers infer the intentions underlying a
speaker’s utterance.
Grice developed the cooperative principle on the assumption that
conversation proceeds according to a principle that is known and applied
by all human beings. According to him, we interpret language on the
assumption that its sender is obeying four maxims which are:

Quantity:

1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current

purpose of the exchange)
2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required

Quantity:
Try to make your contribution one that is true
1. Do not say what you believe to be false
2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
Relation: Be relevant

Manner:
Be perspicuous
1. Avoid obscurity of expression
2. Avoid ambiguity
3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)
4. Be orderly

A maxim can be followed in a straightforward way, a maxim can be

violated because of a clash with another maxim, or can be flouted.
Schiffrin (1994) demonstrates how the maxims of quantity and relevance
can be analysed in discourse. She also reveals how reference and referring
terms (definite and indefinite forms; explicit and inexplicit forms) function
as pragmatic processes in speaker-hearer interaction. She used the
maxims of quantity and relevance to describe the conditions under which
people use different expressions to communicate referential intentions in
discourse. She concludes by showing that referring sequences are the
outcome of pragmatically based choices concerning the provision of
appropriate quantities of information in relevant ways, and thus that
discourse structures are created (in part) by the cooperative principle.
What the Gricean pragmatics, therefore, offers to discourse analysis is a
view of how participant assumptions about what comprises a cooperative
context for communication ( a context that includes knowledge, text, and
situation) contribute to meaning, and how those assumptions help to
create sequential patterns in talk.

Conversation Analysis
Conversation analysis is an approach to discourse which has been
articulated by a group of scholars known as ethnomethodologists. They
are known as ethnomethodolgists because they set out to discover what
methods people use to participate in and make sense of interaction. The
ethnomethodologists examined what people did with their words, when
they were not consciously producing samples for linguists. They felt that
the examples produced by professional linguists were unnatural, since
these utterances were not embedded in actually occurring talk, because
actual talk, by contrast, was typically found in everyday conversation
(Mey, 2001:137). Mey further argues that contrary to the received bias of
official linguistics, conversation talk was not in the least incoherent or
irregular. It was discovered that the rules that conversation followed were
more like the rules that people had devised for other social activities; and
they resembled those discovered by researchers in sociology and
anthropology for all sorts of social interaction, much more than they
resembled linguistic rules. Hence the need to develop a technique that was
in many respects different from the classical transcription techniques of
linguistics. Schiffrin (1994:232) contends that conversation analysis
provides its own assumptions, its own methodology (including its own
terminology), and its own way of theorizing. The focus of the conversation
analyst is chiefly on the organization and structuring of conversation, and
not so much its correctness. Schiffrin notes that even though conversation
analysis has its roots in sociology, it still differs from other branches of
sociology because rather than analyzing social order per se, it seeks to
discover the methods by which members of a society produce a sense of
social order. It is a source of much of our sense of social role. Applying the
CA approach in the analysis of what she calls “there + BE + ITEM”
data, Schiffrin posits that conversation analysis approaches to
discourse consider how participants in talk construct systematic
solutions to recurrent organizational problems. Among the many
problems that are solved are opening and closing talk, turn
taking, repair, topic management, information receipt, and
showing agreement and disagreement. She mentioned that the
solutions to such problems are discovered through the close analysis of
how participants themselves talk and to what aspect of talk they
themselves attend: CA avoids positing any categories (whether social or
linguistic) whose relevance for participants themselves is not displayed in
what is actually said.

Variation Analysis
The initial methodology and theory underlying the variationist approach to
discourse were those of William Labov. The variationist approach is the
only approach discussed in this section that has its origins solely within
linguistics. The approach is concerned with the study of variation and
change in language. The theory proceeds from the assumptions that
linguistic variation is patterned both socially and linguistically, and that
such patterns can be discovered only through systematic investigation of a
speech community. Thus, variationists set out to discover patterns in the
distribution of alternative ways of saying the same thing, that is, the social
and linguistic factors that are responsible for variation (Schiffrin, 1994:
282). Although traditional variationist studies were chiefly concerned with
the semantically equivalent variants (what Labov calls “alternative ways of
saying the same thing”), such studies have now been extended to texts.
Schiffrin also notes that it is in the search for text structure, the analysis
of text-level variants and of how text constrains other forms, that a
variationist approach to discourse has developed. She further contends
that one of the main tasks in variation analysis is to discover constraints
on alternative realizations of an underlying form: such constrains (that
can be linguistic and/ or social) help determine which realization of a
single underlying representation appears in the surface form of utterance.
Again, since variationists try to discover patterns in the distribution of
alternative ways of saying the same thing, that is, the social and linguistic
constraints on linguistic variation, an initial step in variationist studies is
to establish which forms alternate with one another and in which
environments they can do so. Variationists use quantitative methods of
analysis to test hypothesis about constraints on the distribution of forms
within connected speech – these methods differ markedly from those of
formal linguists. Schiffrin explains that variationist approaches compare
different explanations by searching for data that confirm (or cast doubt
upon) the co-occurrences predicted by each explanation. She notes that
although this is not a goal unique to variationists, variationist approaches
add the strengths (and limitations) of quantitative analysis to such efforts.
The variationists also consider the social context as part of the study of
discourse units hence the setting in which a story is told allows (or
inhibits) the display of linguistic competence – it considers social context
under certain methodological and analytical circumstances. Schiffrin
therefore concludes that the variationist approach to discourse is based
within a socially realistic linguistics – in some ways, linguistics clearly
pervades the variationist approach to discourse. Thus, a variationist
approach to discourse is a linguistically based approach that adds social
context to analyses of the use of language.

Discourse Rankscale
The concept of ‘rankscale’ is popular in grammar or linguistics. By ‘rank’,
we mean the order of progression on a ladder. By that, we may have
something at the base (bottom) and another at the apex (top). The
grammatical rankscale in English grammar or linguistics as recognized by
Halliday (1961, 2004) has the morpheme at the base, and the sentence at
the apex. Therefore, the linguistic grammatical rankscale progresses from
morpheme-word-group/phrase-clause-sentence. In the same vein, Sinclair
and Coulthard (1975) proposed a five-unit rankscale for discourse. Also,
from the lowest to the highest, we have ACT-MOVE-EXCHANGE-
TRANSACTION-LESSON.

1. ACT: Act is the lowest unit on the discourse rankscale which is not
divisible. It can be created using grammatical units such as words,
groups, clauses or sentences. For example, (i) She has arrived (Act -
Sentence), (ii) Over the bar (Act - Group), (iii) One (Act - word). An
Act can be informative, eliciting or directing. Therefore, there are
three types of Act. These are informative, elicitation and directive.
(i) Informative: Informative act gives information which can
either yield a positive or a negative response. It gives
information to discourse participants. Let us consider the
conversation between the following participants:
Speaker A: The food is ready
Speaker B: Thank you very much (Positive)
 Speaker A: Mum, I need some money.
Speaker B: I don’t have (Negative)

(ii) Elicitation: Elicitation act comes in form of Question-Answer

discourse pattern. The first speaker here starts the discourse
and invites the next speaker into the discourse. The response
of the next speaker can be immediate or delayed depending on
his interest in the discourse.
Speaker A: What is your name?
Speaker B: Mary (Immediate)

(iii) Directive: Directive act calls for action. It is a situation where

the discourse opener throws the other participant into action.
Husband: Bring the food here
Wife: (Jumps into action) Yes dear.

2. MOVE: Move is the unit of discourse that is immediately next in

rank to act. It consists of one or more acts. It can be simple when
the request is very straight to the point, for example, ‘give me the
bag’. It can also be complex when there are too many demands in
one, for example, ‘Dad, I need a school bag. Not only that, do
endeavour to put some note books inside it. Don’t also forget to add
a pen and two or more pencils. It should also contain some of the
relevant textbooks. I think that is just fair enough or are my
demands too much for you?’ There are different types of move.
They include the following:
(i) Opening and answering moves: An opening move is used to start a
discourse. It can ask a question, give information, request
something, direct an action. The opening move is often followed or
accompanied by an answering move as an answer to the opening
move.

Driver: Where do I drop you off? (Opening)

Driven: Just keep moving. I’ll stop you when I get there.
(Answering)
(ii) Focusing and framing moves: Focusing and framing moves are
more commonly found in the classroom situation. It can also be
useful in a religious setting, for instance in the church where a
sermon is to be preached. Focusing often comes before framing.
Preacher: The topic of our sermon today is the end-time
Christians (Focusing). However, before we go into that,
we need to explain who a Christian is (Framing).
 (iii) Follow-up or feedback move: the follow-up move serves as a
verdict on the answering move. It is also very useful in the
classroom situation. It is a situation where the teacher asks a
question and comes back to assess to the correctness or otherwise
of the question. In other words, the teacher gives judgment. For
example:
Teacher: How many semesters make a session?
Student: Two semesters: Harmattan and Rain.
Teacher: Good of you. (follow-up move)

3. EXCHANGE: An exchange is formed by a set of moves. It involves a

situation where discourse participants engage in series of moves. An
exchange can consist of a question, an answer, a comment or more,
depending on the given situation. For instance, when the first
speaker asks the next speaker a question and he responds and the
first comes back to give a follow-up, an exchange can be said to have
taken place. Consider the following example:
Speaker A: What time is it?
Speaker B: Twelve thirty.
Speaker A: Thanks.
Speaker A: Let's come tomorrow.
Speaker B: Oh yeah.
Speaker A: Yes.

Each of these exchanges consists of three moves. The first move ('What
time is it?') functions as a question. The first move in (2) is heard as
making a request. Types of exchange include free exchanges, bound
exchanges, opening exchanges, medical exchanges and closing exchanges.
However, it should be noted that exchanges can still be as many as the
discourses of different fields of study or profession.

4. TRANSACTION: A transaction is made up of, at least, an exchange.

In other words, therefore, a transaction can be called a set of
exchanges. Some framing words such as right, well, good, now serve
as transaction boundaries. They are used to indicate the end of a
transaction and the beginning of another one.
5. LESSON: A lesson is made up by many transactions. In other
words, therefore, a lesson can be called a set of exchanges.

Discourse Features/Structure
There are different terms associated with the study of discourse. Some of
them include what is known as discourse features or structures.
Discourse features/structures are essential in the study and analysis of
discourse. The constraints of space will not permit us to discuss them in
detail. The reader, therefore, should pay close attention to the items in
bold print.
Conversation takes place when, at least, two speakers are talking.
In such a situation, both speakers are expected to contribute, either
by talking and responding or listening. Discourse can be seen as the
issue being discussed by two or more participants. Discourse opening
is the preliminary exchange between participants. It is expected to open
or start off a discussion or conversation. Discourse closing is the
closing exchange between participants, which is expected to
terminate the discussion. Discourse participants are the people who
are involved in a conversation or discussion. Discourse interruption
occurs when a speaker has the floor, and another makes a move
to take over and successfully paves a way for himself/herself by taking
over the discussion. Speaker is the person that has the floor to speak.
Current speaker is the person that currently has the floor to speak.
Next speaker is the person that takes over the floor from the current
speaker. Speaker change occurs when the current speaker stops
speaking and allows the next speaker to step in, a change has
occurred. There is also a situation in which depending on the age,
status and qualification of different speakers, they are assigned different
roles in speech communication. This is known as Role sharing.
Adjacency pairs often feature as reciprocal exchanges. In
other words, they are exchange structures in pairs. They often take the
form of Speaker A asking question and speaker B responding
(Question-Response), or Speaker A challenging speaker B and speaker B
reacting to speaker A’s challenge. Speech errors are errors made
when a turn is going on. It may include hesitations or slot fillers
such as: ‘er’, ‘em’ ‘I mean’, ‘you know’, ‘as in’, etc. Again, in speech,
when errors or mistakes (speech errors) are made by a speaker, he can
quickly seek redress by withdrawing the earlier statement, by
restating the intended. This is known as Repair Mechanism. Turn
is the current opportunity that is given to a particular speaker to speak.
When the turn of a speaker expires and another takes over, the other has
taken his turn, which is known as Turn-taking. Speakers may also
be involved in a topic which is uninteresting to one of the
discourse participants and the dissatisfied participant may wish to
bring in another topic for discussion, all he has to do in the situation is
just to negotiate the topic by creeping into the discussion. This is
known as Topic negotiation. Talk initiation is the process involved
when a speaker tries to start off a talk with other participants.
Situations also occur in which the current speaker seemingly
forces the interlocutor to talk, probably, by asking question or
demanding a response. This is known as Elicitation in talk. Summon is
a deliberate and conscious invitation to talk. It is a situation where the
speaker uses an attention-catching device like calling the name of the
current or next speaker in order to establish a (facial) contact before a new
speaker or discourse is introduced.

6.0 Discourse Analysis and Social Context

Discourse analysis takes into account how the formal and situational
features of language confer cohesion and coherence on text. The two main
approaches to language identified by Cook (1989: 12) are sentence
linguistics and discourse analysis. The former is mainly concerned with
the study of the formal linguistic properties of language, especially the
well-formedness of a sentence. This approach to language believes that
contextual features, that is, the knowledge of the world outside language,
which enable us to interpret and make meaning in our communication
activities, should be excluded in the analysis of language. To them, the
analysis of language should be based on the system of rules that govern
such language, and not on any external circumstances. Sentence
linguists, therefore, restrict their inquiries to what happens within the
sentence. Sentence linguists perceive discourse as a particular unit of
language above the sentence or above the clause. Schiffrin (1994:20)
regards this as a formalist paradigm or view of discourse.
The other perspective to discourse which recognizes the crucial
place of context of situation and context of culture in the analysis of
language has been described as the functionalist paradigm by Schiffrin
(1994:20). The functionalists describe discourse as language use.
Discourse in the functionalist perspective, according to Schiffrin, is ‘viewed
as a system (socially and culturally organized way of speaking) through
which particular functions are realized’ (32). The functional definitions of
discourse assume an interrelationship between language and context (34).
This approach explores the interconnectedness between language, culture
and social context. The functionalists believe that, as Barbara Johnstone
(2002:50) puts it ‘As people construct discourse, they draw on the
resources provided by culture […] Each instance of discourse is another
instance of the laying out of a grammatical pattern or expression of a
belief, so each instance of discourse reinforces the patterns of language
and the beliefs associated with the culture. Furthermore, people do things
in discourse in new ways, which suggests new patterns, new ways of
thinking about the world.’ Discourse analysis therefore takes into account
non-linguistic issues like the speaker’s race, sex, age, class,
occupation/profession, nationality, religion, location and so in the analysis
of data. Those who approach discourse from the functional perspective
believe that the formal properties of language alone are not sufficient for a
comprehensive understanding of discourse or text. This view of language
or discourse owes much to the inspirational work J.R. Firth and other neo-
Firthians like M.A.K. Halliday, Ruqaiya Hasan, John Spenser and Michael
Gregory.

Discourse Analysis and Grammar

We mentioned above that the notion of ‘coherence’ is important in the
study of discourse. We also noted that discourse does not have to be
composed of well-formed sentences or conform to grammatical rules. Cook
(1989:14) however notes that both formal and contextual links enable us
to account for discourse. They enable us to see or have a feeling of how a
particular stretch of language (whether written or spoken) hangs
together or has unity. The contextual links are features outside the
language such as the situation, the people involved, what they know
and what they are doing. These features enable us to construct
stretches of language as discourse; as having meaning and a unity for
us. However, there is a kind of formal link that connects one sentence
with another in discourse to create unity and meaning for the reader/
hearer. The features of formal links refer to facts inside the language
unlike those of contextual links that refer to facts outside the
language. Cook observes that stretches of language treated only formally
are referred to as text. While mainstream linguistics have traditionally
concentrated on formal features which operate within sentences,
discourse analysis goes beyond that by looking at the formal features
which operate across sentences. The formal links between sentences
and clauses are known as cohesive devices. As noted earlier, the works
of linguistic scholars such as M. A. K. Halliday (see Halliday and
Hasan, 1976) have had a lot of influence on the grammar or formal
properties in discourse. By cohesion, we mean a linguistic unit by which
a text functions as a single unit. It refers to the relations of
meaning that exist within the text. In cohesion, the interpretation in
discourse is dependent on another. In this situation, the one presupposes
the other and cannot be fully understood without recourse to it. Cohesion
therefore refers to the semantic relation that exists within the text. It exists
where the interpretation of some element of a discourse is dependent on
that of another. That is, the meaning of a given presupposition cannot be
effectively interpreted without recourse or reference to another. Halliday
and Matthiessen (2004:536) contend that the “cohesive resources make it
possible to link items of any size, whether below or above the clause, and
to link items at any distance, whether structurally related or not.”
Therefore, in this section, we shall consider the grammatical
terminologies which relate to the discussion at hand. Since the
construction of natural and sophisticated discourse might be impossible
without a command of the resources offered by the grammar of the given
language, the consideration of the importance of grammar is considered
expedient. Grammatical connections are displayed in both spoken and
written discourses between individual clauses and utterances. These
grammatical links can be classified under reference, ellipsis, substitution
and conjunction.

Reference
Reference has to do with the relations between language and extra-
linguistic reality. It has to do with retrieving information for referential
meaning. Reference can also be seen as a relationship between an
expression and what it stands for in the outside world. Basically, there
are two types of co-reference relations. These are endophoric and
exophoric references. The interpretation of endophoric reference lies
within a text. In other words, cohesive ties are formed within the text. It
can be further divided into anaphoric and cataphoric references.
Exophoric reference, on the other hand, refers to a reference which plays
no part in textual cohesion. The interpretation here lies outside the text.
A simpler way of putting them is to say:

Exophoric Reference: Looking Outside

Endophoric Reference: Looking Inside
Anaphoric Reference: Looking Backward
Cataphoric Reference: Looking Forward

Exophoric Reference (Looking Outside) – This has to do with a situation

where the meaning of an expression is extratextual. In other words, the
referential meaning cannot be located in the given text. The reader or
analyst may have to think outside the particular text for full realization of
meaning. For instance, if in the body of a text, a politician says, ‘I will only
allow that after May 29’, the full understanding of the meaning here
requires that the reader or analyst knows that May 29 stands for
democracy day in Nigeria. It is the official day that political office holders
hand over power to their successors after a four year tenure. Therefore, it
is expected that the analyst here looks outside the text for the full
meaning of the date in reference. Hence, exophoric reference is often used
to refer to a world shared by sender and receiver of the linguistic message,
regardless of cultural background, but equally often, references will be
culture-bound and outside the experiences of the language learner
(McCarthy 1991). Another example can be seen in the following sentence:
‘Since the government has placed embargo on employment, we have to go
for private employment’. In this example, the reader does not need to look
forward or backward in the text. It is expected that by shared beliefs or
knowledge between the writer and the reader, the reader should look
outside the text to know that the government refers to the people in power
in that particular country.

Endophoric Reference (Looking Inside) – This has to do with a situation

where the meaning of an expression is intratexual. In other words, the
referential meaning can be located in the given text. The reader or analyst
may only have to look forward or backward to locate what it refers to.
Examples of endophoric reference are given under the anaphoric and
cataphoric references below.

Anaphoric Reference (Looking Backward)

This is a kind of reference which is backward looking. Here, the analyst
has to look backward to get the desired meaning. Basically, the personal
pronouns – he, she, it, they function typically with anaphoric reference.
Beyond the personal pronouns, the definite article – the, and
demonstratives like – that can also be used to make anaphoric reference.
Some other words such as one, did, aforementioned, aforesaid, the former
etc, can also be used. Consider the following example: If the president is
thinking of re-election, he should better impress his followers in his first
term.
Cataphoric Reference (Looking Forward)
This is a kind of reference which is forward looking. Here, the analyst has
to look forward to get the desired meaning. Basically, the personal
pronouns – he, she, it, they and other pro-forms, which anticipate the
noun phrases with which they co-occur, are used. The withholding of
referents in cataphoric reference is a classic device for engaging the
reader's attention. This can, sometimes, be done for quite long stretches of
text. For example, He should better impress his followers in his first term
if the president is thinking of re-election.
In the examples above, while in the first (anaphoric reference), the
analyst has to look backward to know who the he and his refer to; in the
second (cataphoric reference), he has to look forward to know who the he
and his refer to. In both examples, the he and his refer to the president.

Substitution
Substitution has to do with the relation between linguistic items, such
as words and phrases. Substitution is similar to ellipsis, in that, in
English, it operates either at the nominal, verbal or clausal level. The items
commonly used for substitution in English are: One/ones, do, the entire
clause Nominal Substitution: One(s): I offered her a drink. She said she
didn't
want one.
Verbal Substitution: Do: Did Ayo inform the School of the changes? He

might have done.

 John reads now more than Sade is doing.
Clausal Substitution: I asked him if they were all invited to the party, he
said he thought so.

Ellipsis
Ellipsis simply has to do with deletion. It is the omission of elements
which are normally required by the grammar of a language, but which the
speaker or writer assumes are obvious from the context of the text. To the
speaker or writer, therefore, the deletion of such items will not bring about
any serious change. The essence of such a deletion is to make room for
grammatical cohesion in discourse. There are broadly three types of
ellipses which include nominal ellipsis, verbal ellipsis and clausal ellipsis.

Nominal Ellipsis: At this level, emphasis is placed on a nominal element.

In other words, a noun item may be deliberately deleted. Nominal ellipsis
often involves omission of a noun headword. For example, David liked the
blue car but Daniel preferred the white.

Verbal Ellipsis: At this level, emphasis is placed on a verbal element. In

other words, a verb item may be deliberately deleted.
For example, A: Will anyone be waiting?
B: Jude will.
Clausal Ellipsis: At this level, emphasis is placed on clausal element.
With clausal ellipsis in English, individual clause elements may be
omitted; especially the subject-operator omissions.
A: What do you have to do tomorrow?
B: Play and sleep.

Conjunction
Conjunction is also a grammatical device which is used to achieve
cohesion. It includes the use of conjuncts such as and, yet, although, but
etc. A conjunction presupposes a textual sequence and signals a
relationship between segments of the discourse. There are many
conjunctive items. In fact, they are almost not exhaustive, except when
considered from the natural data, especially spoken, a few conjunctions
(and, but, so and then) will be identified. Some of the types of conjunction
include additive, adversative, causal, continuative and temporal meanings.
Let us consider the following examples. Joshua is good. And he's very
reliable (additive). I've travelled all over the world but I've never seen a
place as underdeveloped as this (adversative). He fell from the hill and got
his bones broken (causal). She has to love you, after all you fulfilled all the
marriage requirements (continuance). I got up early and was the first to
get to school. (temporal sequence).

Discourse analysis and Vocabulary

This aspect can also be called lexical cohesion. When the word
‘vocabulary’ is used, what readily comes to mind is lexis. Lexical cohesion
involves the use of lexical devices to achieve cohesion. Cohesion refers to
the relations of meaning that words keep. Halliday and Hasan (1976) have
also had a lot of influence on the vocabulary patterns in discourse. This
has to do with the consideration of related vocabulary items which occur
across clause and sentence boundaries in written texts and across act,
move and turn boundaries in speech. The two principal kinds of lexical
cohesion are: reiteration and collocation.
Reiteration: Reiteration has to do with saying or doing something
repeatedly or several times. Reiteration means either restating an item in a
later part of the discourse by direct repetition or reasserting its meaning
by exploiting lexical relations. It manifests in different ways: repetition (for
instance, a word can be repeated between two sentences to show
emphasis), hyponym (when a super-ordinate term is used in place of a
word, for example, rose and flower. Rose is a hyponym of flower) and
synonym (when two different but similar words are used interchangeably).
Collocation: Collocation is a term used for words that appear to move very
closely together in a given discourse. They are words that move
in company of each other. The mention of one immediately brings to
mind the other. Such words are regarded as collocates. There are
different types of collocation. They include complementaries (brother
and sister), converse (wining and dining), antonyms (coming and going
these several seasons), part and whole (building and door), part and
part (driver’s seat and passenger’s seat), co-hyponyms (fork and knife)
and links (teachers and students). The role of certain words in
organizing discourses to signal discourse structure cannot be
backgrounded. Vocabulary, therefore, plays an important role in the
analysis of discourse.

Discourse Analysis and Phonology

Phonology, as a branch of linguistics, also has a vital role to play in
discourse. The aspect of phonology that is most significant in this regard
is intonation. This is not far-fetched from the belief that the most exciting
developments in the analysis of discourse have been in the study of the
suprasegmental (with emphasis on intonation) rather than at the
segmental level (the study of phonemes and their articulation) and partly
because the teaching of intonation in phonology is open to challenges from
a discourse analyst's viewpoint.
 At the segmental level, emphasis is placed on phonemes. In other
words, it is the angle where we give consideration to pronunciation
(teaching). To do the teaching-learning of such phonemes appropriately,
beyond the production of sounds, similar sounds are contrasted with other
words, for example, the phonemes /p/ and /b/ in English contrast in the
words pill and bill. However, at the suprasegmental level, attention is
shifted to longer stretches. For instance, in the consideration of a stretch
of spoken English discourse, the rhythmic pattern of utterances is
measured by the occurrence of stressed syllables. The regularity or
otherwise of such stressed syllables and the alternation between strong
and weak 'beats' in various patterned recurrences dictate the rhythmic
pattern. Rhythm is an important element in the teaching of phonology.
Likewise in spoken discourse, rhythmicality is seen in varying degrees in
long stretches of speech. It also points attention to the speaker, whether
he is a native speaker or second learner of the language. It brings to fore
how careful a speaker is in the consideration of deliveries such as (news)
broadcast, talks, teaching, reading speeches and citations, as well as some
ordinary conversation. Also, since English is seen as a stress-timed
language, unlike most Nigerian languages which are syllable-timed, the
spoken discourses of the natives of both origins are likely to differ. The
principal distinction is brought as a result of the difference between
stress-timing and syllable-timing.
Considering intonation in discourse, speech can be divided into
small units in which each unit has at least a main or nuclear prominence.
This prominence is marked by some variation in pitch, either
predominantly rising or falling. These are different tunes. Beyond these
two, there can still be a longer list such as fall-rise tune, rise-fall tune, etc.
They give different meanings to different utterances. The prominence
given to any syllable in an utterance is a pointer to any significant
variation in pitch that the speaker might use. It is the duty of the speaker
to decide on how the information is to be distributed into tone groups and
where the tonic is placed. The speaker rests his decision on what he
needs to say, the information he intends to pass across and what he wants
to be highlighted for the listener. With the right tune, speakers manage
large stretches of interaction, in terms of turn-taking and topic-signalling
even as they use different pitch levels to interact. The intonational cues
such as turn-taking, topic-framing and topic-signalling interact with other
factors like syntax, lexis, non-verbal communication and context, and are
typical of how the different levels of encoding have to be seen. It is worthy
of note to remark that the interpretation of tone choice in spoken
discourse is to see tones as fulfilling an interactive role in signalling the
intended information in discourse.
Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an innovative, multidisciplinary
approach, which tackles a number of important social issues. It draws on
many of the methodological tools of more traditional fields such as critical
linguistics, text linguistics and sociolinguistics (Osisanwo, 2011). In fact,
Norman Fairclough’s approach or model draws upon the Hallidayan
systemic functional linguistics (SFL) theory; his concern with language,
discourse and power in society allows the integration of sociological
concepts as well. CDA researchers do not merely ‘simply appeal to ‘context’
to explain what is said or written or how it is interpreted’, rather, they
have come to see language as a form of social practice (Fairclough,
1992:47). Discussions on the origin and developments of CDA have often
centred around the quartet of Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak, Teun van
Dijk and Paul Chilton (Blommaert, 2005: 21). Another major scholar
whose propositions and initial theory have greatly encouraged the
development of this theory is Roger Fowler, the proponent of Critical
Linguistics. CDA has been viewed as an offshoot of Critical Linguistics.
Different analysts, especially discourse analysts and critical
discourse analysts, have tried to examine what CDA is all about and
sets out to achieve. Most of them mainly considered this from the angle
of its concern. There have been divergences in their opinions since the
discipline itself is multidisciplinary. According to van Dijk (2000:353)
CDA is ‘a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the
way social power abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted,
reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political
context’. Van Dijk’s position here shows that, for CDA to actually become
realistic, society must be in place, since it is concerned with the social
issues, especially political issues. His definition also reveals that CDA
sets out to resist social inequality and expose the social ills, which
possibly pervade or seemingly affect the human psyche. CDA is a type
of discourse analytical study that primarily focuses on ‘opaque as well
as transparent structural relationships of dominance, discrimination,
power and control as manifested in language’ (Wodak, 1995:204). It
takes into account how issues are manifested through language. It
studies the way texts and talks are used in enacting, reproducing and
resisting social power abuse, dominance and inequality (van Dijk,
2000). Its domain of concern mainly centres on social and political
issues. Wodak (2001:2) also says CDA is mainly concerned with
analyzing people as well as transparent structural relations of dominance,
discrimination, power and control as manifested in language.
Another very useful definition of CDA that encapsulates most of the
other definitions is the one given by Fairclough (1995b). According to him,
CDA is the study of often-opaque relationships of causality and
determinism between:
 (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and
(b) wider social and cultural structures.
Fairclough and Wodak (1997:271-80) give a summary of the main tenets of
CDA to include:
(i) CDA addresses social problems
(ii) Power relations are discursive
(iii) Discourse constitutes society and culture
(iv) Discourse works ideologically
(v) Discourse is historical
(vi) The link between text and society is mediated
(vii) Discourse analysis is interpretive and explanatory, and
(viii) Discourse is a form of social action.

While Fairclough (1989:24-6) identifies and describes three stages which

are salient in CDA practice, O’Halloran (2003:2) identifies two stages.
Fairclough identifies description stage, interpretation stage, and
explanation stage. At the description stage, the formal properties of a text
are considered. At the interpretation stage, the relationship between text
and interaction is the central concern, that is, getting to see the text as a
very useful resource in the process of interpretation. The explanation
stage looks into the relationship between interaction and social context,
with emphasis on the processes involved in production and interpretation
vis-à-vis their social effects. O’Halloran (2003:2) claims that at the
interpretation stage, CDA focuses on the cognition of texts, thereby
unveiling how text can mystify the events being described for the
understanding of the reader. At the explanation stage, according to him,
CDA focuses on the connections between texts and socio-cultural context.
The focus in this regard is on the relation between linguistic analysis and
the socio-cultural context (O’Halloran, 2003:2). However, a major
observable defect in this regard is CDA’s concentration on the explanation
stage than the interpretation. A good analysis within the framework,
therefore, requires a concise understanding and application of the two
stages of interpretation and explanation.
The three stages and two stages of CDA which were identified by
both Fairclough (1989:24-6) and O’Halloran (2003:2) respectively try to
ask; How is a text produced? What are the properties put together in
producing it? What informs its production? Does it have any affinity with
the socio-cultural setting in which it is produced? In relation to social
theory, CDA sees discourse as a social phenomenon (Blommaert, 2005)
and works in two distinct directions. First, it has interest in the theories
of power and ideology, hence, it borrows from the ideas of Michael
Foucault (1975, 1982), Antonio Gramsci (1971), with bias for hegemony.
Second, it has interest in making attempt to overcome structuralist
determinism, hence it borrows mainly from Anthony Gidden’s (1984)
theory of stucturation.
Certain notions are central to the whole idea of CDA. Some of them
are: dominance, hegemony, ideology, class, gender, race, discrimination,
interests, reproduction, institutions, ‘social structure and social
order’ (van Dijk 2000:354). CDA focuses primarily on social
problems and political issues and the way issues relating to power
and dominance in society are enacted, confirmed, challenged or
reproduced by language, or more specifically discourse structures. Van
Dijk (1993:249) asserts that CDA tries to answer questions on the
relations between discourse and power, dominance, social inequality and
the discourse analysts’ position in the relationships.

Conclusion
We have tried in this chapter to discuss aspects of discourse analysis we
consider fundamental to the study and analysis of discourse. We
attempted to define the concept of discourse and the linguistic analysis of
discourse. Further, we discussed some of the linguistic approaches to
discourse, discourse rankscale and discourse features. The relationship
between DA and social context, DA and grammar, DA and
vocabulary, and DA and phonology were also examined. We also
endeavoured to introduce the reader to critical discourse analysis
(CDA). As we noted in the introductory part of the chapter, DA is a vast
discipline and insights from it have been used in solving problems that
originate from so many other disciplines and domains of study. The
reader may wish to read the chapter on ‘computer-mediated
discourse’ (CMD) by Innocent Chiluwa and the one on ‘pragmatics’ by Akin
Odebunmi to complement our effort in this chapter.

References and Further Reading

Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford
University Press.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis: Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cook, G (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Edward Arnold.
Fairclough, N. (1998). Political Discourse in the Media: An Analytical
Framework. In Bell, A. and Garrett, P. Eds., Approaches to Media
Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fairclough, N. (2002). ‘Critical Linguistics/Critical Discourse Analysis.’ In
Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Ed. Kristen Malmkjaer. New York:
Routledge. pp.102-106.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social
Research. New York: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997). ‘Critical discourse analysis.’ Ed.
Teun van Dijk, Discourse Studies. Vol. 2, 258-71.
Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et Punir: Naissance de la Prison. Paris:
Gallimard
Foucault, M. (1982). ‘The order of discourse’. In Shapiro, M. (ed.),
Language and Politics. London: Blackwell. Pp 108-138
Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the
Press. London & New York: Routledge.
Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G. and Trew, T. eds (1979). Language and
Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Gramsci, A. 1971 Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci.
(ed. Q. Hoare, and G. N. Smith). London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Grice, H.P. (1975): ‘Logic and conversation’ in Cole and Morgan (eds).
Syntax and Semantics. Vol 3. New York: Academic Press.
Goffman, E. ( 1976). ‘Replies and Responses.’ Language in Society, 5,257-
313.
Goffman, E. 1979. Form of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Gumperz, J. J., and D. Hymes. (1972). Directions in Sociolinguistics. New
York Holt, Rinehan and Winston.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language.
London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1975). Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the
Development of Language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as a Social Semiotic: The Social
Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London; Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1983). Foreword to M. Cummings and R. Simmons’ The
Language of Literature: A Stylistic Introduction to the Study of
Literature. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London:
Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K.and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An Introduction to
Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.
Harris, Z. (1952). ‘Discourse Analysis.’ Language, 28, 1-30.
Hymes, D. (1962). ‘The Ethnography of Speaking’ in T. Gladwin and W.C.
Sturtevant (eds) Anthropology and Human Behaviour.
Anthropological Society of Washington.
Hymes, D. (1964). ‘Towards Ethnographies of Communication Events’ in
Giglioli (1972)(ed). Language, and Social Context Harmondsworth;
Penguin Books.
Hymes, D (1972). ‘On Communicative Competence’ in Pride J.B. Holmes J.
(eds). Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. pp. 259 – 293.
Janks, H. (1997). ‘Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool.’
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. Vol. 183: 329-
341.
Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
McCarthy, M. J. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mey, L. J (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
O’Halloran, K. (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Osisanwo, A. (2010). ‘Language, Politics and Development: A Lexico-
Semantic Analysis of Selected Political Posters.’ International Journal
of Languages and African Development. Vol. 2, No. 1. IDEE. pp. 159-
176.
Osisanwo, A. (2011). ‘Language and Ideology in Tell and The News’
Representation of Nigeria’s 2003 and 2007 General Elections.’
Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, Department of English, University of
Ibadan, Ibadan.
Osisanwo, A. (2012). Fundamentals of English Phonetics and Phonology.
Lagos: Femolus – Fetop publishers.
Osisanwo, W. (2003). Introduction to discourse analysis and pragmatics.
Lagos: Femolus – Fetop publishers.
Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson (1974). ‘A Simplest Systematic
for the Organisation of Tturn-taking for Conversation.’ Language,
50(4),
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J. McH., and R. M. Coulthard (1975). Towards an Analysis of
Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
Ltd.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
van Dijk, T.A. (1987). Handbook of Discourse Analysis. New York:
Academic Press.
van Dijk, T.A. (1993). ‘Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.’ Discourse
and Society 4[2], 249-283.
van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
van Dijk, T.A. (2000). ‘Critical Discourse Analysis.’ Retrieved March 8,
2009, from http://www.discourse
.org.oldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf.
van Dijk, T.A. (2001). ‘Multidisciplinary CDA: A Plea for Diversity.’ Methods
of Critical Discourse Analysis. Eds. Ruth Wodak and Micheal Meyer.
London: Sage Publications. pp 95-120.
Wodak, R. (1995). ‘Critical Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis.’
Handbook of Pragmatics: Manual. Eds. Verschueren, J. et al.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp 204-210.
Wodak, R. (2001). ‘The Discourse-historical Approach.’ Methods of critical
discourse analysis. R, Wodak and M. Meyers. Eds. London:
Sage. 1 – 13.