the language but something which exists in people.

Using coherence ‘turn to language’ and the

arums semantic unity the paragraph,
the reag
ler Discourse analysis is closely linked to the
of social constructionism.,
Example: Her; That's the phone € mergence
Him: I’m in the bath.
sis
Her: Ok. 2,2 Linguistic Discourse Analy
We can interpret the above dialogue with
the help of Conventional aj Discourse analysis is a huge interdisciplinary field (Van Dijk & Kintch
and by our background knowledge that someone is in the bathroom and er 1997). A variety. of disciplines, including linguistics, psychology, sociology,
attend the telephone. cays ‘
3. Parallelism anthropology. and many others, contribute to discourse analysis.
Linguistic discourse analysis is a part of linguistics belonging to the
Parallelism means side by side. In some piece of literature some paradigm of constituent-oriented fields, such as phonetics/phonology,
comparisons or contrasts go side by side with each other They also help to morphology, and syntax Linguistic discourse analysis deals with linguistic
interpreter the whole text.
constituents of the maximal, unlimited size, that is, whole discourses.
Example: Jn Jane Austen's ‘Pride and Prejudice’, good marriages and Linguistic discourse analysis has three main issues of concern (Potter
bad marriages are compared and contrasted on parallel levels
1997). The first question, usual in the study of any natural phenomenon, ts the
4. Speech Events question of classification, or taxonomy: what types of discourse occur? The
Speech events are mainly concerned what people say in different second question concerns the internal organization of discourse: what is its
environment. Debate, interview. discussions, quiz are different Speech Events, structure? The third question is: how is discourse related to more: local,
Speakers may have different speech roles as friend, strangers, young or old of smaller-scale linguistic phenomena. or, more specifically, how discourse
equal or unequal status This background knowledge is about the personality and factors influence such smaller-scale phenomena (grammatical, phonetic,
environment give a better comprehension for better interpretation of discourse. etc.)? It is useful to briefly overview these three parts of linguistic discourse
5. Background Knowledge analysis
Background knowledge can be very much helpful in interpreting any text.
6. Schema and script are two terms that comprise the background knowledge. 2.2.1 Taxonomy of Discourses
Schema and script tells us what is actually the real situation and what are the
actions. Schema is conventional knowledge which exists in memory- Script ways in which particular discourses can differ from
There are several
is essentially a dynamic schema in which conventional action takes place
each other. The first major taxonomy is based on the mode of discourse, that 1s,
(Fairclough & Wodak 1997). The schema of a supermarket holds. the (Sometimes one also
the opposition between spoken and written discourse.
knowledge “food displayed on shelves. checkout counters” While in script Speaks about the intemal mode of discourse (lfversen URL) and about the
such actions are involved as going to movies, eating in a restaurant electronic mode (Herring 1996; Baron 2000), although the latter ts actually a
Submode within the written mode.) A systematic comparison of spoken and
Example; Trying not to be out of the office Suzy went mio the nearest
discourse iS
Wnitten discourse began only in the last several decades. Written
place, sat down and ordered a sandwich ; and
Here in the above example the background knowledge of the situation
to the oral use of language in all respects, and thus must be viewed as
‘scondary
the action can be traced out through the schema and script a5
js some unPresentation, the basic studies
adaptation Inof discourse language
featuresit isof wefa to the gexphic/visual mode of
Schema tells us: Suzy may be an office girl. The nearest place aS always control for whether data
restaurant Somes from Spoken or written Isnguage use, as discourse processes may be
SENSitiVvE to Mode =
Script tells us: About the action she performed as:
Firstly, she unlocked the door
(Van on noire central taxonomy of discourse is aclassification ints ane
ere
Secondly, she walked to the nearest restaurant
Certain stand * Discourse genres are types of discourses thax
Thirdly, she opened the door of the restaurant. 4 what communicative goals, typical of the one = eran
Discourse Se
Here schema and script tells us what is actually the real situatoP ane f >
pear in ic ae crosseut the modes: for examples, the genre
are the actions, Poken mode and in the written mode, still being the same ge

4?
Chapter 2
conversation interviews, commentaries and speeches. Text analysis focuses on
the structure of written language, as found in such text as essays, notices, road
Discourse Analysis and the Process of Translation signs and chapters (Crystal 1997: 116). Some scholars state about “spoken or
written discourse” others about “spoken or written text” (Crystal 1997; 117). It
2.1. The Field of Discourse Analysis means Discourse and Text can be used almost synonymously. A distinction, is
that in discourse, has some: social purpose while text fulfills the function of
Discourse (from Latin discursus ‘running to and from’) denotes Written communication of some meaning only. As suggested by S. Stembrouck
and spoken communications: (Stembrouck URL) who treats text and discourse as more or less synonymous,
+ In Semantics and Discourse Analysis: Discourse is a conceptual Hobbs (Hobbs URL) says text may be non-interactive where as a discourse is
generalization of conversation within each modality interactive. Means to say text is non-interactive that’s it only fulfills the
and context of
communication. The totality of codified language (vocabulary) used in a given function of conveying some meaning. But discourse is always involved in two
ways responses in some formal or informal conversation and dialogues. Hobbs
field of intellectual enquiry and of social practice, such as legal discourse,
medical discourse, religious discourse, etc. (Hobbs URL) further says “discourse is a linguistic communication seen as a
transaction between speaker and hearer. While text is also a linguistics
e In the work of N. Fairclough, and that of the social theoreticians he
communication (either spoken or written) seen simply as a message coded in its
inspired: discourse describes “an entity of sequences, of signs, in that they are auditory or visua! medium”.
enouncements (énoncés)”, statements in conversation (Fairclough URL).
Discourse analysis is a broad term for the study of the ways in which
+ In scientific texts and debates. it is used indiscriminately, often without language is used in texts and contexts, or texts’ surrounding and defining
being defined. discourse (Mackin & Mayr URL). Also called discourse studies, discourse
The concept has become vague, either meaning almost nothing, or being analysis was developed in the 1970s as a field of study.
used with more precise, but rather different, meanings in different contexts. As Abrams and Harpham describe in “A Glossary of Literary Terms”,
But, in many cases, underlying the word “discourse” is the general idea that this field is concerned with “the use of language in a running discourse,
language is constructured according to different patterns that people s continued over a number of sentences, and involving the interaction of speaker
utterances (sayings) follow when they take part in different domains of social (or writer) and auditor (or reader) in a specific situational context, and within @
life, familiar examples being “medical discourse” and “political discourse framework of social and cultural conventions” (Abrams, Harpham).
(Potter 1996). : _ Discourse analysis has been described as an interdisciplinary study of
A discourse is behavioral unit. It is a set of utterances which conse discourse within linguistics, though it has also been adopted (and adapted)
by
recognizable speech event e.g. a conversation, a joke, a sermon, an te researchers in numerous other fields in the social sciences. Theoretics
etc. In its historical and etymological perspective the term 15 used in aif pea background, perspectives and approaches used in discourse analysis include the
/ indirect a
perspectives: verbal communication, talk, all fine talk, direct oe
Ylistics,
applied linguistics, conversation analysis, pragmatics, rhetore,
chat. In order to narrow down the range of possible meanings, the ™m and text linguistics, among many others
a
linguists (Machin & Mayr URL) have given different views or definite Discourse analysis is the analysis of these pattems. But this common
Discourse is written as well as spoken: every utterance assum e non ts not of much help in clarifying what discourses are, re
hee
speaker and a hearer as discourse. (Beaugrande URL) eapulated how to analyze them. Different developed theories and = o
dae, analysis
thee ae have to be sought out. In the search, one quickly fi out
An individualized group of statements and sometimes 45 a Tee
approa Sa analysis 1S NOt pust one approach, but aseres of tareedisciplinary
practice that counts for a number of statements (Fairclough URL) - used wilt
The specification with the term is that “discourse have ake The brie’ diiteay cs that can be used to explore many different social comers in many
tie or b ees of studies, And there is no clear consensus aso we pense
some social purpose” it's the main specification of discourse, anding and o " '© analyze them. Different perspectives offer their NS sugges pare
difference between discourse and text will facilitate to better understa the terms “discourse
compete to appropriate
term “discourse”. 5 arse .
“discourse
SOME
‘se analysis”
extent,
a a
for their own definitions.
Speaking about the difference between Discourse as sd Text
k Diet in
as foun
Analysis focuses on the structure of naturally spoken languape
a3
42
 Discourse analysis is a broad and
diverse field,
approaches to the study of language, includin
( w hich derive fr Vv
disciplines and utilize various an alytic om diff CTE hora, inter sentence connectivity ete. It is an effort to interpreter what the
al practices (M achine NL scien ei
a ; i eaker intended to convey with in a sensitive social context.
broad sense, discourses are defined n & Mayr URL) A
as systems of mear ung Re ie Father: Is that your hat on the bed again?
interactional and wider sociocultural contex that are elated
t and operat me ‘ Son: yes (goes on reading).
speakers’ intentions. Discourse analysi e regard] ted to th
the psychological phenomena, such
s examines language in ue “SS Of the: Here in the above example Discourse Analysis says that the answer of the
as attitudes, mene cae oie is not clear one, It shows the exploitation of ambiguity about father’s
are traditionally presumed to underli
e talk and be rey ealed throigine on
which eomuand to pick up his hat. Rather the son deals his father’s command as a
In discourse analysis language is cate content question which can be answered in yes /no. : a.
examined in terms cee o ;
function; that is, language is considered Discourse Analysis is a process in which the reader and listener s mind is
a means of constructing: neg Ba:
mirroring, reality. Language is also consid working up on the linguistic features of the utterance to grasp the intended
ered a form of social ee or
use language to achieve certain interp meaning of the wnter or speaker. Even if the utterances or sentences are
ersonal goals (e.g attribute res name
refute blame etc.) in specific interac ungrammatical the Discourse Analysis makes us grasp the intended meaning.
tional contexts, Disesanel Be re Example: My natal was in a small town, very close to Riyadh capital of
examines how certain issues are constructed
in people's accounts mie Saudi Arabia. The distance between my town and Riadh 7 miles exactly, The
variabi
lity in these accounts, and explores the rhetorical
the aspects and name of this Almasani that means in English factories. It takes its name from
functions of talk in the context of the Ongoing
interaction (Machin & Mayr the people carrer. In childhood | remember the people live. It was very simple
URL). Discourses entail subject positions, which speaker
s take up when they most the people was farmer,
employ language, and this has fundamental consequences both for The above paragraph is full of grammatical mistakes sinee by Discourse
the sense of
self and experience of the speakers and for the actions they are entitled and Analysis of this text we can grasp mostly what is the information, the writer
expected to perform. Furthermore, there is a mutual relationship between wants to communicate. Discourse concerns with communication so Discourse
discourses and institutions; discourses are produced and disseminated through Analysis gives us the interpretation of the communicated commodity.
institutional practices and they in turn legitimise and maintain these practices.
Finally, discourses are wrapped up with power, since they make available Devices for Discourse Analysis
certain versions of reality and personhood, whilst marginalising alternative
We use different tools for Discourse Analysis. Some of them are as under:
knowledges and associated practices. Discourse analysis examines the ways 1A
1. Cohesion
which discourses permeate talk and other kinds of texts. Cohesion refers to the ties and connections which exist within texts that
Discourse analysis also involves looking at the effects of discourses 0m
link different parts of sentences or larger unit of discourse.
for example, how we experience ourselves and relate to each other. ite
Cohesive Devices:
discourses may reproduce or challenge culturally dominant ways s
a) Anaphoric Relation. Interpretation of text from some. previously
understanding the world, and, in turn thus reproduce or challenge dominan expressed idea entity.
institutions and the particular kinds of social order (Nunan 1997). Example: She did that here. ;
Discourse and text have something in common as both use the me dium
ei of Every word has some anaphoric reference with which interpretation could
language whether in sign language. Both have some meaning that they ai hot be made :
convey. But text has a limited scope as compare with discourse. In oo ae b) Cataphoric Relation. Tt means referring forward. It refers the identity
we can say discourse is somewhat broad category in the system of ee (cr What is being expressed and what is to be expressed.
Discourse has a But
And text deals with the written from of language. Example: Here is the 8 o ‘clock news
as Discourse of Advertising, Discourse of Racism, Discourse of aici its By using these relation and links we can better understand, interpret and
text has no such forms. Discourse can be found with in text. Te oe the analyzed discourse
maximum interpretation in its own but discourse has a lot of things @ 2. Coherence ;
language level. j arities inl nen language users try to come to an interpretation in ee ¢
: I analysis is an attempt to discover linguistic regular sion Be of the world they poss. Coherence is not something which ©
discourse using grammatical, phonological and semantic criteria ©8:
44
45
Genres can be defined in terms of underlying genre
schemata —
generalize the order of meaningful components, or “moves” The boundary between global and local discourse structures is no firm, of
»>ma token of the course, these are simply two poles in a continuum. Thinking top down, global
given genre. For example, according to Chafe (1994) > Stories tolq ty
conversationalists follow the following schema: ee structure is gradually broken into smaller and smaller units that
(a) orientation; anally lead to the local structure. There are some frameworks that provide a
(b) complication; unified account for discourse structure, without making a strong distinction
(c) climax; between global and local structure. One remarkable framework of this kind is
Rhetorical Structure Theory developed by Mann and Thompson (Fraser 1999),
(d) denouement;
(e) coda. that represents discourse as a hierarchical network of nodes ranging from one
It has been suggested sometimes that genres can be identified on the basis clause to a large discourse chunk; nodes are connected by one and the same
kind of discourse-semantic (“rhetorical”) relations, irrespective of the size of
of their lexico-grammatical peculiarities. As the study by Potter (Potter 1997) the node.
has revealed, this ts unlikely: from the point of view of lexico-grammatical
characteristics, discourse of one genre can be very heterogeneous. Much mone
2.3 The Process of Translation and Discourse Analysis
homogeneous are the so-called passages (Grenoble URL) — sections of
discourses, such as narrative, descriptive, expository, argumentative, and Translation studies emerged to transfer knowledge between different
instructive. languages. Huckin (Huckin URL) defined translation as the act of
The differences between kinds of discourse, cross-cutting the ones just communication between specifically dealing with two distinctive languages
discussed, relate to the so-called functional style and degree of formality. The including a range of different components such as culture, politics, history and
notion of functional style, developed in linguistics (Potter 2001), is defined in ideology. Werth (Werth 1999) suggested another definition in which translation
terms of typical social domains, such as lay, official, commercial, political, is consider the process between two different written languages involves the
learned. Degree of formality depends on the kind of social relationship between changing of an original written text (the source text or ST) in the original verbal
and is
discourse participants, including their relative status, gender, age, etc.,
Source language SL into a written text (the target text or TT) in a different
under the notion of politeness verbal language (the target language or TL). Some early studies focused on the
closely related to the phenomena often subsumed
in many notion of being faithful to the source text as Potter (Potter 1997) argued while
(Stembrouck URL). Both functional styles and formality are reflected the idea of the equivalence is still exist up to date.
lexical, grammatical, and phonetic choices made by he eeu she deeunctive
The diversity of discourse types is not exhaustec ant € ied
features briefly discussed above. The variation of discourse 1S ae 2.3.1 Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS)
ane on the
comprehensive discussion is far beyond the goals of this est
used to capture all possible discourse types
Oi y ae DTS was developed by Gideon Toury and has since become an
term sometimes ]
basis of any or all of the distinctive features)
is register (Stembrouc Soar Be Oey used in translation studies in order to compare and
ie alee Seg somantion product along with the source text Potter (Potter 1997).
target text ee Ne. analysis of differences between the source text and the
2.2.2 Discourse Structure function ae (Potter 1997) stated that DTS may examine the product, the
isc » analysis is discourse0 tTonalaiien the Process, The product-oriented DTS examines the existing
The second major issue in linguistic discourse analy
in lingu
structure
n the global and 1 thex local is Shed afich description and analysis of single or several ST to TT pair
structure. It is useful to distinguish betwee e structu
a re 1S same ST Th : his also would involve the comparative of several TTs of the
1997). Global ee
discourse (Van Dijk & Kintch nks,5 translation in « puinction-oriented DTS is related to the description of the
constit uents of ae oh
segm entation of discourse into its immediate ds
Local iscours®
adjacen SONtEXt rath, 2 ; © Fecipients’ sociocultural situation. It focuses more to the
Brown Beer
as paragraphs in an article (Brown & Yule Sea to the Ie¥ el of
the Bavcholon Man the text itself. The process-oriented DTS is concerned with
sation ( Beaugr ande
and interrelated turns in a conver Mind of th BY of the translation. It also concerns with what happened in the
of minimal units that
structure is the structure consisting © translator from a cognitive perspective.
discourse.
49
 two types:
2.3.2 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) His approach of analysis suggested
of syntax (grammar)
a) Micro-level which is the analysis of text in terms ca
(vocab ulary) ; f ;
The CDA considered the main division of the Discourse Analysis (DA) and lexis cal
b) Macro-Level which is the analysis and description of rhetori
which can be used as a research method in social sciences and as a theory. One texts.
organization of various
of the founders of CDA, Norman Fairclough has described it as aiming: to
systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and The influence of Target Culture on Translation
determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider The translator's decisions are to some extent determined by the
social and cultural structures relations and process to investigate how much constraints of the target culture. It indicated that any particular translation
practices, event and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relation of process 1s influenced by historically constituted discursive recourses in which
power and struggles over power (Fairclough 2001), the translator is willing to reformulate the text in accordance with norms and
In order to carry out a CDA in an appropriate way, a considerable account conventions of the target culture. Therefore, in order to have an acceptable
should be given to the social variable such as ideology, power and gender. This translated text to the target readers, the translator should take into account the
is to say that CDA focuses not only on the given text but also on the social target culture context
structure, which made CDA as a context bound approach. Locke (Locke 1998)
summarized CDA in seven bullet points: Ideology Transmission through Translation
1) Views a prevailing social order as historically situated and therefore In his definition T. van Dijk stated that ideology is a way to view and
relative, socially constructed and changeable. describe the world which comes into existence with the use of any particular
(1 Views a prevailing social order and social process as constituted and language. Precisely, Pagani indicated that ideology is a way of thinking and
Situated less by the will of individuals than by the pervasiveness of particular describing the world-order in a more natural way. T. van Dijk identified the
constrictions or versions of reality. three most important concepts; discourse, social cognition and society
G Views discourse as coloured by and productive of ideology. ; (Fairclough URL). The emphasis here is where ideology constituted by critical
( Views power in society not much as imposed on individual subject a discourse, which influences the social cognition and hence accepted by society.
an inevitable effect of way particular discursive configurations or arrangements Secs. a Migorous investigation of the discursive manifestation ina
privilege the status and position of some people over others. i ne | should be conducted in order to find out the hidden ideological
Views human subjectivity as at least in part constructed or inscribed by
beicison oe cat text The affect of ideology is mostly relevant to the
discourse. tific ths : peeelss translated text. This is to say that the ideology may
Views reality as textually and intertextually mediated via verbal and
non-verbal language systems and texts as sites for both inculcation 4! comparing Sani and production of the meaning in translation in
contestation of discourse. target language - ie text, Therefore, a translated text is influenced by the
.
| Views the systematic analysis and interpretation of texts as potentially accordance SS = translator where the source text will be retextulised in
revelatory of ways in which discourse consolidate power and colonize human has emphasized target text norms and conventions. In addition, T. van Dijk
subjects through even covert position calls (Fairclough 2001). Fairclough lees Tanslation and = Bute elements in. terms of the relationship between
done an excessive contribution to the formation of CDA in both directions &® ; determing the pe one network of forms, conventions and beliefs are to
Inds of transtati $ ator S decision when producing a text. Venuti identified two
theory and as a research method. He argued that the text does not CONES
Meanings through linguistics features but it is generated and analyzed by Whether to jeay ik Strategies; domestication and foreignisation meaning that
discursive formation reflecting certain ideologies or given ways of controll a Teader dine he writer in peace and drag the reader towards him or leave
and manipulating power relations. Similarly Dijk, developed range of fies ‘Mitclough URL) 48 much as possible and push the author close to him
stating that CDA is a type of discourse analytical research that primary suT In on rer ‘ x +
the way social power abused, dominance and inequality are enacted, reproduce u id Minimization domestication deals with the reduction of the foreigo text
and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. R N the ofa foreignness
'nOther of TT to receiving cultural values (Fairclough
x
hand, foreignisation strategy involves the translation
SO
S1
methodology that is excluded by dominant cultural values j
language. Venuti indicated that these two translation strategies are | the tay on-going process open to new
dialogue existing between them is an
ideological stances since the translators has to adopt the TT’s cule Wi
interpretations.
and conventions in order to maintain a recognizable and readable ce Nonny
Additionally, foreignisation strategy would maintain the press The Scheme of Discourse Analysis
ST amongst the TT in which the translation product will appear ideone Of the
loaded with the ST norms and conventions (Fairclough URL), OBially 1. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
the text '
Taking into account the three dimensions of discourse: text, Discourse
1. ‘|. parameters of
discourse g Establishing extralingual factors that determine the type of discourse
social practice, translators would be looking at translation as a communicate
s etc.).
activity rather than a mere linguistic one, as some theorists have already bites the text belongs to (pictures, photographs, schemes,the formulas,
text belongs to (legal,
out (Brown & Yule Brown 1983). New and different knowledge should be 4. Determining the type of discourse of the mass
administrative, business, military, scientific discourse; discourse
accessed in order to broaden horizons and raise new ideas to solve problems,
discourse; colloquial discours
defend their solutions when criticized and thus they would be able to grow media: political discourse, fictional (aesthetic)
etc.}.
professionally in skills, knowledge, disposition, demeanor, and credibility,
Including translators as discourse analysts is one of the first steps for such
2, Communicative characteristics of the text
important change of beliefs and behavior in our current society. By relating the 1. Constituents of the communicative situation of the text belonging to a
translator's view to the discourse analysis we intend to focus the translators, certain type of discourse and in particular: deictic parameters of the text = by
Students and researchers’ attention to translating as a communicative process whom, to whom, where, when and with what aim textual information is
which takes place within two different social contexts or frameworks. transmitted
2. Identifi ion of the communicative intention of the text
2.4 Linguistic Discourse Analysis (Practical Aspect)
2. LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS
LITERARY DISCOURSE offers a good example of intertextual 3. Pragmalinguistic characteristics of the text
relationships which exist within a literary text. Being regarded as a reciprocal categorical hierarchy of the text at the following levels.
dialogue between the writer and the reader, the literary text appears a - 1. Structural level: means of ensuring lexical and semantic cohesion in the
intentionally structured message full of connotative meanings aimed to arouse4 fext: repetition links used in the text (simple and complex lexical repetition,
specific response, The reader reconstructs the message intended by the author simple and complex paraphrase, co-reference, substitution, et); grammatical
and. at the same time, he contributes his own experience to this process. spe and syntactical structure of the text (patterns of the sequence Of tenses, the use
nt
the original text is, in fact, an intertext which helps create the reader's text: ! Of articles, compound and complex sentences, etc.) :
accounts for the various interpretations of a literary text as every reader sie _ 2. Semantic level: establishing the macropropesition of the text and its
up his own input. Only some part may coincide with what the author pani referential relationships with the text segments.
intended, the rest is, as a rule, inferred by the reader, The more competent a
4 » Stylistic characteristics of the text :
reader is the better he will understand the author’s message.
By 4 pi information in the text
competent we imply the literary and cultural
background which may y ting
lingual means of intransmitting
1. Analysis of the“strong” the text: the author of the text, =
titte ‘Ss on positions
reader decode the text. This knowledge is acquired through extensive
of the text, composition
and learning which form the reader's literary competence
og the Parner: the text, absolute beginning and end ; ;
Generally, imtertextuality is retrospectively oriented as i pa iis ‘staphs, which contain central textual information, ete;
already existing or presupposed text(s) but it creates a refreshed vision © b) establishing “weak” positions in the text, Le. positions, which provide
Arguments to the “strong positions”.
part of a new idcational context to which it is subordinated Howevel
reader evokes implies
the time). This texts not meant
th by the suthor (theyoy maymé no thay ¢ been ndcrete
autt ha t
at Lexts certainly interact with each other #

52
 2. Analysis of tropes and figures of speech (stylistic devices Hobbs URL — Hobbs J. ihe Problems of Discourse. URL: hutp:
expressive means) used in the text: metaphors, epithets, idioms, ER ier ww. isi.edu/hobbs/disinf-chap|/node2.html :
metonymy, irony, hyperbole, litotes, zeugma, pun, simile, Oxymoron, ete oie ee uckin URL —_ Huckin T.N. Discourse Analysis // hitp:www,
3. Analysis of special literary and colloquial vocabularies used jn the -hanges.state.gov/education/engteaching/publs/BR/functionalsec3_6:htin
te excns Ifversen URL — Ifversen J, Text, ane Concept: Approaches to Textual
(proper names, asyndetic combination of nouns, subject field terms, quotations ‘<i Kontur. 2003. Ne?. P.60—69, URL: http: www. humau.dki/cek/
poetic and highly literary words, obsolete words, neologisms, barbarism, Ansty docs/kontur-07/pdl/iler/ji-textipdf
internationalisms, acronyms, items of the national lexicon, buzzwords, wease} hy Locke 1998 — eosenee = i ae Of Society: Why we don’t Talk to
words, textspeak items, items of slang, jargon, dialectal, vulgar words, ete) er Anymore. New York, .
ae ee & Schuster 1998 URL — Machin D., Mayr A. How’ to Do Critical
References Discourse Analysis: A Multimodal Introduction. Sage, London, UK (2012), URL:
Beaugrande URL Beaugrande R. The Story of Discourse Analysis // hitps://www.sciencedirect,convscience/article/pii/S24523151 17300929#bib2
Introduction to Discourse Analysis / in Teun van Dijk (ed.). London: Sage, 1996, Meinhof URL — Meinhof U. Discourse // The Blackwell Dictionary of
P. 35—62. URL: http: www. beaugrande. bizland.convStoryDiscAnal.htm Twentieth Century Social Thought // Outhwaite W., Bottomore T. (eds.). Oxford:
Brown & Yule Brown — Yule G. Discourse Analysis, Cambridge; Cambridge Blackwell, 1993. P. 161—162. URL: http: www. dictiOlover.soc.uk/meinhof-
University Press, 1983, 128 p. d/acide.co/htm
Cook 1989 Cook G, Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989, Nunan 1997 — Nunan D. Discourse Analysis. Introducing. London: Penguin
PF 3—19! Books, 1997. P. 1-9
Crystal 1997 — Crystal D. Text and Discourse // The Cambridge Encyclopedia Stembrouck URL — Stembrouck S. What is Meant by Discourse Analysis.
of Language / D. Crystal. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, URL: http: www.bank. rug.ac.be/da/da/htm
1997. P. 116—117. Potter 1996 — Potter J. Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetone and Social
Dellinger URL Dellinger B. Discourse Analysis. URL; http: Construction, London: Sage, 1996
www_users.utu.fi/breddelli/da:-html Potter 1997 — Potter J. Discourse Analysis as a Way of Analysing Naturally
Dijk URL — Dijk T. A. van. Discourse, Context and Cognition, URL: http: Occurring Talk // D. Silverman (ed.). Qualitative Research: Theory, Methods and
www. discourse-in-society.org/teun_html Practice. London: Sage, 1997
Fairclough URL Fairclough N. Critical Discourse Analysis. = Potter 2001 — Potter J. Wittgenstein and Austin: Developments in Linguistic
Transdisciplinary Research. URL; http://www. ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/norman! Philosophy // M, Wetherell et al. (eds). Discourse Theory and Practice. A Reader,
London: Sage, 2001.
norman.htm ‘cal
Fairclough 2001 — Fairclough N, The Discourse of New Labour:
Ss iar Disk 1997a — Van Dijk T. (ed,) Discourse as Social Interaction: A
Discourse Analysis // Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis / M. Wetherelt, ee Introduction Vol. 2. London; Sage, 1997,
S. Taylor and S. Yates (eds). London: Sage Publications, 2001. 456 p. Fay pees a 1997b —Van Dijk T. Introduction // Discourse as Structure and
Fairclough 1997 — Fairclough N. and Wodak R. Critical discourse a Vin ee Introduction. Vol, 1. London: Sage, 1997. ;
T. van Dijk (ed.). Discourse as Social Interaction: Discourse Studies: Bubicheas . Kintch 1997b - Van Dijk T., Kintch W. Strategies of Discourse
Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 2, London: Sage, 1997. and. the Werth Hose Press, 1997. : :
Fairclough 1993 Fairclough N, Critical Discourse Analysis 2m 4(2). Werth P. Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in
Discourse. | ondon: L,
Marketization of Public Discourse: The Universities // Discourse and Sociely = Ongman, 1999. P.1—4, 46—5],
1993. P. 133—168. h . ourse
Fairclough & Fairclough 1997 — Fairclough N., Wodak R. Critical ae ‘s
Analysis // T. van Dijk (ed.). Discourse as Social Interaction: Discourse Stme>
Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 2. London: Sage, 1997.
//) Jour" nal of
Fraser 1999 — Fraser B. What are Discourse Markers?
pragmatics, 1999. 31, P.931—952. a http:
Grenoble URL — Grenoble L.A. Discourse Analysis. URL!
www. indiana edu/slavonUSLING2k/postpapers/grenoble.
pdf

54