Qualitative research approaches and designs: discourse analysis

Lavinia Suciu, Politehnica University Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania

© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
This is an update of P. Nikander, S. Vehviläinen,Discourse Analysis, Editor(s): Penelope Peterson, Eva Baker, Barry McGaw, International Encyclopedia
of Education (Third Edition), Elsevier, 2010, Pages 373–379, ISBN 9780080448947 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.01521-9.

Introduction 141
Discourse analysis as a qualitative research approach 142
The peculiarities of discourse analysis as discipline of study 144
Relevance of discourse analysis in terms of QUAL research 146
Conclusion 148
References 148
Books 148
Chapters in books 149
Articles in proceedings 149

Introduction

Discourse analysis is an effervescent field, which has undergone a rapid development, as a result of the convergence of influences
coming from numerous disciplines: linguistics, anthropology, philosophy, and, more recently, communication, psychology, artifi-
cial intelligence. For this reason, the terms discourse and discourse analysis have different meanings, depending on the field in which
they are used (Schiffrin et al., 2001). Recent and current studies reflect the interdisciplinary significance of this field of knowledge,
attesting the coexistence of language sciences with the ones in the sociological, psychological, communicational area (Rovența-
Frumușani, 2004; Dâncu, 2001; Schiffrin et al., 2001; Jaworski and Coupland, 1999; LeVine and Scollon, 2004). Our perspective
on discourse analysis as a research method describes an epistemological framework for investigating discourse as a space of signi-
fication, the core of which is represented by linguistics (linguistic pragmatics) and complemented by theories derived from anthro-
pology, sociology, psychology, communication (Suciu, 2005, 2014a,b, 2019).
The concept of discourse is shaped along different interpretive tendencies (such as, for example, the restriction to the oral aspect of
communication, to face-to-face interaction as the equivalent of the concept of speech). From the Dictionary of Linguistics and of
Language Sciences (1994), we note three uses of discourse, which are also signaled by Baylon (1991): speech, enunciation, rules
for chaining the suites of sentences. Since the late 80s, the term discourse has incorporated the meaning of “speech in the situa-
tion”din sociolinguistics and sometimes in pragmaticsdand that of “text”dused in discourse analysis and in the grammar of
the text (Baylon, 1991). From the various definitions attributed to the discourse, three categories have been highlighted where
discourse is included: “(1) anything beyond the sentence, (2) language use, and (3) a broader range of social practice that includes
non-linguistic and nonspecific instances of language” (Schiffrin et al., 2001: 1).
Since the above framing of discourse reveals its relationship to language, communication, meaning and context, the definition of
the field of knowledge that deals with the study of discourse refers to a conceptual association where linguistic, sociological, rhetor-
ical theories are found. Defined as the use of language for social purposes, discourse analysis updates the cohabitation of the epis-
temological paradigms of pragmatics (the new rhetoric, the theory of enunciation, the theory of language acts) and sociology
(ethnomethodology, ethnography of communication, conversation analysis, sociolinguistics) (Schiffrin, 1994). Despite its heter-
ogenous aspect, discourse analysis finds its unity and consistency in certain points that the disciplines which contribute to its consti-
tution have in common as follows:

• Conceptualization of the discourse as a collective construction;

• Intervention of social and cultural norms, which determine roles and relationships of the participants, as well as the content of
the messages;
• Social and interactive character of language;
• Dynamics of the enunciation (Suciu, 2019).
We aim, in this paper, to provide a delimitative description of the discourse analysis, which brings together three perspectives: iden-
tifying its peculiarities as a qualitative research, the presentation of its specificity and the relevance of discourse analysis by high-
lighting its functioning in order to explain the current interaction in several fields. Therefore, in the first part, our approach
focuses on defining discourse analysis as a qualitative research by comparison with the quantitative research. Also, the uses of
discourse analysis as qualitative research in linguistics, rhetorical criticism, communication, and education are highlighted.
Focusing on the constituent theories and on the concepts used in discourse analysis, we aim to emphasize the role of linguistic
analysis in understanding the social. From this perspective we draw attention to relevance of employing discourse analysis in
communication sciences, educational settings and in cognitive psychology. Besides, considering discourse analysis as a qualitative

International Encyclopedia of Education, 4th edition, Volume 12 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.11016-4 141

142 Qualitative research approaches and designs: discourse analysis

research in other fields, we aim to illustrate how it serves to explain the classroom interaction, so as to discover ways to increase the
efficiency of the teaching-learning activity. The examples presented reveal how the discourse analysis helps to describe the interac-
tion in school and to improve communication, the teacher-student relationship: “. insights from discourse analysis in schools can
help to make them better.” (Temple Adger: 503).

Discourse analysis as a qualitative research approach

Due to its characteristics, discourse analysis is considered a qualitative research approach and it is used in such fields as communi-
cation sciences, social psychology, language learning, translation (Schiffrin et al., 2001). Regarding its importance in the study of
communication, for example, Tracy has noted: “An upshot of the disciplinary context within which discourse studies emerged is that
discourse analysis in communication is conceived as a method of inquiry” (Schiffrin et al., 2001: 726). The Dictionary of Qualitative
Methods in the Human and Social Sciences (Mucchielli, 2002) incorporates discourse analysis into the category of qualitative research,
defined as “discursive and significant approach to reformulate, explain or theorize a testimony, an experience or a phenomenon”
(Paillé, in Mucchielli, 2002: 33).
Emerged in the 60s in the Anglo-Saxon space, the term qualitative research designates “a methodological approach that resorts to
an interviewing process or to a form of qualitative analysis” (Mucchielli, 2002: 55). Qualitative research establishes a relationship
with reality, with the subjects of the research and with the scientific explanation. The roots of qualitative research may be identified
in the founding disciplines belonging to the trunk of the social and human sciences, through which they are differentiated from the
natural sciences.
The fundamental feature of the qualitative research is the comprehensive (subjectivist/interpretative) perspective, through which
human actions are considered phenomena of the meaning. These phenomena can be understood through a specific effort, related
both to the human nature of the researcher and to their own nature (through empathy). The interest of a qualitative research is in
phenomena (observable events, existential experiences), rather than in the exact, precise language used by an individual in inter-
actions. It provides a reformulation, an interpretation, a theorizing of the phenomena that are lived or observed. According to
the qualitative research approach, a text, a discourse, a device, (generally a human creation/achievement) is regarded as a set of
collective or individual actions or as intangible phenomena, as representations (e.g., cultural norms, ways of thinking), in order
to extract the meaning for oneself and for others. The qualitative approach is not intended to attest a point of view, but to explain
it or to argue it theoretically (a reasoned interpretation is proposed to the receiver, more than a proven one). In order to solve
a research problem, qualitative approaches comprise mainly ideational operations, that is, techniques of data collection and pro-
cessing, which are not quantifying, automatic operations. Qualitative researches provide a qualitative analysis of data, through
which words are interpreted by means of words, by applying the resources of intelligence to the perception of meanings. The conclu-
sion of this analysis consists of a story or a theory, not of a demonstration (Mucchielli, 2002).
Qualitative research is often presented in comparison with quantitative research. The latter uses quantitative methods of docu-
ment analysis (generally texts), which are based on mathematical and statistical techniques (sampling, decomposition, numbering,
encoding, comparison, linking) and is aimed at discovering the properties of the document. Identifying these properties allows for
a commentary on how that document makes sense and creates effects in a particular context. In the qualitative approach, the utilized
procedures are based on ideational (reasoning) operations performed on the elements of a document or on a set of documents and
have as their objective the explanation of meaning (Mucchielli, 2002). The parallel reveals an opposition that, although considered
artificial, is relevant because it emphasizes the distinction between the two epistemological and methodological poles, allowing the
identification of the main features of qualitative research (Mucchielli, 2002: 56–57):

• It concerns comprehension, depth (as compared to quantitative research, which seeks control and amplitude and extension);
• The logic of discovery (unlike the quantitative research, which adopts a logic of verification);
• The importance of the context (the context is perceived: it is not posed or considered constant as in quantitative research);
• It is interested in local, circular and symbolic “causality” (as opposed to quantitative research that can establish “causal”
relationships and correlations);
• It tries to understand the complexity of situations, in order to present it in detail (while in quantitative research complexity is
sublimated or denied).
From a methodological point of view, the qualitative approach involves the use of one or more methods of data collection (e.g.,
observation, semi-direct interview, group interview, collection of organizational, personal, historical documents, etc., journal,
artistic productions, videos, photos, etc.). In collecting data, the researcher is immersive in his/her research, establishes a personal
and prolonged contact with the environment, with the people. In order to analyze the data, the investigator may choose among one
or more methods (qualitative content analysis by theorizing, needs analysis, conversation analysis, etc.), but his/her involvement is
also present at this stage, in that the research tool is represented by his/her own person (while in the natural sciences the instrument
is external, for example, the microscope).
The object of discourse analysis, as a method of qualitative analysis is “the enunciative device that correlates a textual organiza-
tion with a determined social place” (Charaudeau and Maingueneau, 2002: 43). Discourse analysis provides a link between
language and social reality in order to explain, through comprehension, a human or social phenomenon. In analytical reflection,
the role of context is decisive, primarily due to the integration of linguistic pragmatic theories, namely: the theory of enunciation
 Qualitative research approaches and designs: discourse analysis 143

(Benveniste), and the theory of language acts (inaugurated by Austin and continued by Searle) and coupled with their interference
with Perelmann’s new rhetoric, the analysis of conversation, and the ethnography of communication. Aiming at clarifying the use of
language in concrete situations of communication, “for social, expressive and referential purposes” (Schiffrin, 1994: 339), discourse
analysis reveals the functioning and effectiveness of discourse, in other words, the dynamics of interaction.
In discourse analysis, the function of language ceases to be limited to the transfer of information. It acquires the communication
dimension, by taking into account the interhuman relationships. The connexion between the protagonists of a verbal exchange is
part of the context and is inscribed in the language, a situation conceptualized by the subjectivity of language (Benveniste, 1966).
The sender of a discourse uses the words not only with their referential function, of representing reality, but also in order to act on
his/her interlocutor, which means changing, modifying an existing state of affairs, behaviors, ideas. Advanced by the pragmatic
theory (language is an act), this conception prioritizes the intentional and actional function of language (Suciu, 2005, 2014a,b,
2019), allowing a complex description of social interaction. Participants create and transmit content based on their social role
and status, on intention, on the social and cultural norms that work in that particular interaction. The discourse is thus perceived
as a collective construction, whose semantic co-construction includes the following elements: the intention of the sender, his/her
knowledge of the receiver and of his/her expectations, the socio-cultural framework of the interlocutors, their social context and
identity, the relationship between them.
As interdisciplinary field, discourse analysis focuses on the comprehensive aspect, on the study of discursive practices of real
communication situations and of the discursive genres generated by them and on the investigation of verbal interaction
(Rovența-Frumușani, 2004). Discourse analysis incorporates different orientationsdthe most important being the theory of speech
acts, the interactionist sociolinguistics, the ethnography of communication, the Gricean pragmatic approach, the analysis of conver-
sation, the variationist linguisticsdwhich have a common denominator although they use different research methods (Suciu,
2019). The stakes of this interdisciplinarity concern both the ability to understand the variety of discursive genres in modern
and contemporary society and the ability to interact effectively with others, to diminish/annihilate barriers or social/political/
cultural disadvantages (Rovența-Frumușani, 2004). Sharing the approach of researchers (Schiffrin, 1994; Rovenţa-Frumuşani,
2004) who treat discourse analysis as an umbrella term, we consider that the analytical perspective proposed by discourse analysis
is relevant because it:

• demonstrates how the linguistic fact is responsible for influencing/modifying the social fact;
• supports the role of linguistic analysis as an instrument of understanding the social, the relational fabric established in a concrete
plan between individuals and/or groups having the status of social actors;
• reveals the functioning and effectiveness of a discourse and of the dynamics of interaction.
In the light of the above, we consider that discourse analysis is a useful qualitative research method in the study of written or spoken
language in relation to the interactions taking place in the social context. The aim of the investigation is to decipher the meanings
that escape immediate identification in texts/situations/processes. Depending on the field in which it is used as research method,
discourse analysis has various connotations. The use of discourse analysis as a method of investigation in linguistics refers to the
examination of a linguistic unit that goes beyond the boundaries of a sentence. In addition, it studies the way in which language
is used socially. Discourse analysts in the field of communication are differentiated by the fact that they are concerned about treating
the subject in everyday situations. In the field of communication, discourse analysis is the study of speech (or text) in context, where
research reports use communication sequences and their analysis as central means of scientific argumentation (Tracy, 2001). The
implementation of the method of discourse analysis in education aims to identify the specificity of the language in school, as it
is related to the linguistic competence necessary for the student to obtain good results. The interest in the study of verbal exchanges
with the help of discourse analysis also goes toward explaining the actions by which learning, as the main target of schools, is
achieved (Temple Adger, 2001). In rhetorical criticism, unique political discourses and actions are studied within the theoretical
framework offered by literary criticism, political and continental philosophy, history, film studies and so on (Tracy, 2001).
In order to reveal how the pragmatic theory in discourse analysis helps to identify the implicit meaning, we refer to an example
that we have discussed on another occasion (Suciu, 2014a,b), leading to the discovery of the sense that is correct and adequate to the
context in which it is issued. From the beginning, we should mention that, very often, in communication, the meaning of a message
is not always limited to the meaning conferred by the sequence of words and phrases. In other words, the meaning of a message
results also/especially from the manner in which it is uttered. The message consists of a sequence of sounds, words, phrases that
have a certain meaning, forming the content of the communication or the information. It is accompanied in speech by a specific
tone (serious, joking, derisive, etc.), by a mimicry, an attitude or a posture, which complete the literal meaning of the phrases, some-
times even modifying them. All these indicial elements have a role in establishing the register of interpretation of the message
(whether it is a joke, a threat, an order, a suggestion, etc.). At the same time, they relate to the knowledge of the type of relationship
between the participants in the verbal exchange and have to do with the utterance of the message.
According to the theory of utterance in pragmatics (Benveniste, 1966), the example This Morning it has snowed consists of the
utterance, which represents the act/activity of a person who uses the language through an individual act of usage and a statement,
which is the product of this activity. The statement This morning it has snowed is referential (a fact from reality is transposed into
a linguistic form), and addressed by a sender to a receiver in a specific context (a certain moment, a certain place, there being a certain
relationship between them). We note that the message contains the sender’s underlying belief in what he/she says, but it is not
expressed explicitly, by using the linguistic features (such as I affirm, I am convinced). The conviction, in this example, indicates
144 Qualitative research approaches and designs: discourse analysis

the attitude of the sender toward what he/she states and this conviction is contained in the meaning of the utterance, as we will
discuss in the next section. If the statement is accompanied, for example, by the linguistic marker be careful and/or by the intonation
corresponding to a warning, then the correct meaning of the message is one of warning. The message thus carries an indicator of the
utterance and thus, it becomes:

This morning it has snowed, therefore you should be careful not to slip/leave home earlier than usual, since the traffic is hampered/put on your hat, etc.

Different features may be attached to the statement either explicitly, verbalized in the statement (I say, I am convinced, I doubt, I do
not think, I hope, etc.), or non-linguistic and paralinguistic features (gestures, attitude, posture, mimicry, intonation). The indicators
of the utterance perform the function of a code by which the statement acquires its complete significance. The precision of its
meaning is given by the reference to the data provided by the context. In other words, in order for the receiver to get the exact
and correct meaning of the message, he/she will act on the message through reasoning that involves reference to the context, restrict-
ing the semantic series of possibilities. For example, depending on the moment when it is issued, the indicator of the statement may
be the warning (you should leave home earlier, the traffic being hampered), depending on the relationship of the participants, the
message may be completed with the urge: You’d better put on your cap (if the message is sent by a mother to her child) etc.
Understanding the meaning of a message by using the linguistic features/markers, the paralinguistic features (such as intonation
and tone of the voice) or the non-linguistic features (such as gesture) is easier than the case when they are missing (the case of
written communication). Assigning a meaning to the message requires the identification of these features in order to deduce the
intention of the sender. This purpose is fulfilled by some theories of pragmatics. Although these theories use different concepts,
they cover the same object, namely the discursive principles/laws which, by being paired with the context data, help the receiver
interprets the message and to reach its meaning.
We consider that, by appealing to theories from pragmatics and rhetoric, to sociological and anthropological theories, discourse
analysis approach can provide a complex description and explanation of real life discourse and interaction. Thus, discourse analysis:

• addresses the comprehension of the communication situation in order to explain the meaning;
• goes into deeper layers of analysis, due to the interest in the “local” aspect;
• has the ability to reveal the complexity of situations, explaining them in detail;
• gives importance to the context in interpretation, which reflects the connection with the social aspect;
• determines the understanding of the social aspect, of the relationships established between individuals and/or groups as social
actors;
• gives an interpretation that is updated in words;
• demonstrates flexibility and possibility of adaptation to the object of study because the research tool is intrinsic to the researcher;
• contributes to the improvement of the quality of interaction and to the efficiency of communication.

The peculiarities of discourse analysis as discipline of study

The following presentation focuses on highlighting the peculiarities of discourse analysis as a qualitative research, especially the
correlation with reality, with the social, through the pragmatic conception that substantiates this field.
A first conception of discourse/communication is related to the customs in Ancient Greece and to the understanding of discourse
as an instrument available to the Greek citizen in the form of a pleading. Delivered in public, discourse became a way to defend
a personal interest or access a privileged social position. The art of communication (which was called rhetoric) developed as a means
of persuading the audience, therefore, the interest in acquiring and studying it equaled the magnitude of the interest in the art and
science of war, that had already been established at the time. Later, specialists in rhetoric appeared (Corax from Syracuse, Tisias, the
Sophists) who developed elements of communication theory, representing communication methods and techniques imposed by
practical requirements (to win litigations on wealth recovery, for example).
Plato conceived communication (and, implicitly, the discourse) as a sophisticated process involving not only the study of influ-
encing and persuading techniques but also the study of knowledge, of the meaning of words or of human behavior and ways of life.
Unlike Plato, for Aristotle rhetoric was a corpus of technical means to convince the audience and/or win a cause (Florescu, 1973).
This definition of discourse implies the social aspect in addition to the communicative intention of the sender, both of them being
specific to the pragmatic conception, that is predominant in discourse analysis, as well. Similar to ancient rhetoric, the pragmatic
school of thought views discourse as a unit whose identity is shaped not only by its linguistic expression, but also by the assump-
tions produced by the receiver, relative to the speaker’s (direct or underlying) intention and context. One of the points of interfer-
ence between ancient and pragmatic rhetoric is the communicative intentionality of the speaker (Gross, 2000; Eco, 1996).
Discourse analysis is guided by the inherent junction of the language fact with the social fact, a foundation of the interactional
theory which will be presented in what follows. Schiffrin (1994) says that discourse analysis involves six approaches that are consid-
ered dominant: the theory of speech acts, pragmatics, ethnomethodology, interactional sociolinguistics, ethnography of
 Qualitative research approaches and designs: discourse analysis 145

communication, and variational sociolinguistics. The close connection between discourse and society has been supported over time
by linguists, sociologists and anthropologists, philosophers, psychologists, mathematicians/computer scientists.
The interactional theory on communication claims the appeal to rules that do not belong to the linguistic code, but to the uses of
language, updated in the verbal interaction, without a break from the linguistics of the language/code. Thus, the verbal interaction,
viewed in a general way of functioning, is constructed and interpreted with the help of rules that are applied in a given contextual
framework, on a material of heterogeneous semiotic nature (verbal, paraverbal, nonverbal units) (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1990). The
interactionist theory is the premise for the development of a sociolinguistic research study on communication (ethnomethodology)
and of pragmatic theory in linguistics. If the latter focuses on the study of language use, the socio-anthropological approach surveys
the role that language plays in relation to society and culture (Suciu, 2019).
Defining language as a “guide to social reality”, in the first half of the 20th century, E. Sapir, updated a sociolinguistic conception
of it (Sapir, apud Mounin, 1975: 82–97), of which we point out two significant aspects for discourse analysis. On the one hand, the
value of language as a tool that mediates the relationship between the individual and the reality foreshadows the sociolinguistic
theories of communication sciences, regarding the effect of communication on the individual and society. On the other hand,
the introduction of the social dimension of language, which involves the psycho-social component, is later found in the semiotic
and pragmatic theories of linguistics. Thus, the subjective and social stakes of language are converted, in discourse analysis, into
issues such as: subjectivity of language, discursive genres and critical analysis of discourse, through the representative research of
E. Benveniste, J. Austin, J. Searle, D. Hymes, T. van Dijk (Suciu, 2019).
The sociological perspective has as center of interest the role of language in culture and society and the act of communication as
frame of reference The study of language in its social context, sociolinguistics aims to highlight the relationship between the orga-
nization of the message, as a premise of linguistic analysis, and the social implication of this message (Suciu, 2014a). The study of
language in sociocultural context branches off into three directions according to the importance of either the social aspect or the
linguistic aspect: the ethnography of communication (where the social aspect is a priority), variationist sociolinguistics (the social aspect
is integrated into the linguistic one) and interactional sociolinguistics (the social and the linguistic aspects have equal weight).
Pragmatics explain the relationship between the linguistic form and its user (the sender), how language is used in communica-
tion. “Usefully defined as the study of how utterances have meaning in situations” (Leech, 1989: 2), pragmatics became a central
theory in discourse analysis, which refused to accept the limitation of the meaning in the abstract. Studying the language
in situation, (i.e., communication) and aiming at analyzing concrete verbal exchanges as verbal interactions, by referring to partic-
ipants, use and contexts, pragmatics becomes one of the basic paradigms on which discourse analysis develops alongside with the
structuraldfunctional paradigm, the social/socio-linguistic and the critical ones (Baylon, 1991). “Discourse analysis must not only
explain why certain statements and not others have been preferred, but also it should account for the way those statements have
mobilized forces and influenced social networks” (Maingueneau, 1991: 35). The interactionist perspective in pragmatics is based
on three aspects related to language: subjectivity, the implicit and the social, exploited differently in pragmatic theories. The subjec-
tivity of language, being the concern of the stylistic direction, has been reaffirmed by Benveniste (1966), by his theory of utterance
(fr.: l’énonciation). The theory, from which the linguistics of utterance develops is linked to the preoccupation of linguists for the
communicative intention of the speaker, named force meaning (Thomas, 1995). The utterance indicates how the speaker uses the
language in order to work out the intended force and to act on the receiver. Thus, the theory emphasizes the relationship between
the speaker and the receiver through their interaction (Suciu, 2005).
The implicit is a concept belonging to the cognitive orientation and invested in conversational analysis of H. P. Grice. The conver-
sational implicature is defined by Yule (2006) as an additional unstated meaning that the hearer must assume the speaker to convey
more than is being said. It deals with the determination of the utterance’s meaning and force through the operation of some
communication rules (cooperative principle) and through the contribution of both, the speaker and the receiver. To the same extent,
the implicit meaning serves the speech acts theory (to determine the indirect speech act) outlining the direction of research in analyt-
ical philosophy or pragmatics itself, which studies language as an instrument of action. The link between the concept of discourse to
that of utterance reveals two aspects: the intentionality, to which subjectivity is related, and the implicit, to which the social is corre-
lated (Suciu, 2014a,b). The speaker’s intention to produce a reaction in the interlocutor’s attitude (the utterance force), through the
issued discourse entails its conceptualization in the speech act theory. The philosophers of language, J. Austin and J. Searle, conceive
language as an instrument of action: the speech act is an action performed by the use of an utterance to communicate (Austin, 1970;
Searle, 1972). In the view of M. Pêcheux, discourse analysis offers the opportunity to study the immediate communicative situations
through the appeal to the statementdutterance relationship and to the pertinence of the discourse situations, as well as to the possi-
bility to study the social and cultural situations within the pragmatic framework by approaching them with linguistic criteria (Suciu,
2019).
Taking examples from advertising discourse or signature discourse of the organization (Suciu, 2005), we observe that the
meaning of the utterancedclosely linked to the sentencedindicate the way in which the sender uses the language by an individual
act that bears his/her imprint. The funny tone, as a mark contained in the statement, which is explicitly expressed in some adver-
tising messages, imprints the message with a relaxed, familiar atmosphere, thus a reduced social distance between the speaker and
the receiver; the sentence will be understood in this orientation of the meaning.
Example: Pringles. Once you pop, you can’t stop.
Below, there are two examples of a signature discourse of the organization expressed in a serious, even sober manner (an
indicator of the utterance), which make us think about the sender’s position of authority (he/she states something being entitled
to do so).
146 Qualitative research approaches and designs: discourse analysis

Tiriac Bank: Look ahead!

Euromedia: Show up with the best!
Their interpretation is made on the basis of a common rule according to which a statement that communicate an order or
an interrogation implicitly contains the idea of the sender’s authority (the sender has the appropriate position to issue an order
or to interrogate). The assigned sense of a message is oriented by the explanation of the utterance’s meaning, through the inter-
vention of discursive principles in the interpretation realized by the receiver, starting from the literal form of the statement
(Ducrot and Schaeffer, 1995). For example, an order/request requires its fulfillment, a question requires for an answer, etc.
In conclusion, the receiver’s interpretation is based on the discursive principles from the discourse analysis theories and the
context data.
Therefore, in order to study the discourse/communication, we consider that the inclusion of pragmatics is profitable for
discourse analysis, being supported by the following aspects: (1) the function of some theories favorable to the analysis of
a discourse (the interactionist theory, the implicit, the theory of the acts of language); (2) the openness toward the social environ-
ment; (3) the inclusion of the argumentative perspective.
Timeliness confronts discourse analysis specialists with a new challenge. The digitalization of communication has instituted new
interactive, social and communicational practices, some of them being quantifiable (for example, the frequency of posts). These
have not gone unnoticed in what discourse analysis means today. Numerous studies have been devoted to the technical artifact
involved in virtual discourse (Baron, 1984; Herring, 2001; Webber, 2001; Kress, 2003; LeVine and Scollon, 2004; Suciu,
2014a,b; Suciu and Mocofan, 2015; Suciu, 2021, 2018, 2019) or digital communication (Walther, 1996; Griffin, 2005; Kasdorf,
2003; Weasenforth, 2006; Frascara, 2012; Duarte, 2008, 2013). In a first stage, concerns about the virtual discourse were directed
toward a certain discursive genre, materializing in descriptions of some virtual communication systems, in empirical descriptions of
language in online interaction or in studies focused on the variety of discourse in this environment. Subsequently, the interest of
research focused on the influence that situational and technical factors exert on communication, generating its variety and
complexity (Suciu, 2019).
Observations of issues related to the discourse of the digital society, such as the impact of technology on society in terms of users’
linguistic or nonlinguistic behavior, interactional and social practices of individuals (users) have led to significant changes in the
theoretical framework of approach and interpretation of current discourse. The examination of virtual discourse involves reconsi-
dering the position of the sender (to the text and to the receiver), the receiver (to the text), as well as the inter-relational context in
a given communication situation. The technological aspect does not leave its mark on verbal language alone. It is known that a so-
called code, specific to the electronic environment, exists and operates and, through it, any action taken in this environment (a virtual
act such as creating, posting/blogging, activating in a social network, etc.) acquires a meaning (Badau, 2011).
While reconsidering the discursive approach, discourse analysis confirms its capacity to adapt to the forms of expression that are
manifested at present and, at the same time, foreshadows new tendencies in investigation and interpretation. The interdisciplinarity
of theories and methods of examination, specific to the field of discourse analysis, in necessary and productive complementarity to
environmental factors, is likely to generate an integrated investigative system, which is a generous source for developing strategies
for successful creation and interpretation of digital communication (Suciu, 2014a).

Relevance of discourse analysis in terms of QUAL research

The role of discourse analysis as a qualitative research in the field of education is demonstrated by several accomplished research
projects centered on this subject. It is not uncommon for our scientific preoccupations to be directed toward explaining the linguistic
and nonverbal behaviors through which learning, as the main school objective, is achieved. We have focused our attention on the
interaction in the academic environment, in order to find ways to make the teaching-learning activity more efficient. We have high-
lighted discursive strategies able to facilitate learning and lead to a greater efficiency of the teaching process. Since achievement of
interaction in the educational institutions is mostly linguistic, we used discourse analysis as research method. Nevertheless, we
sometimes considered appropriate to complete this method with elements/notions from the communication sciences, psychology,
sociology, education. Here are some of the papers published on this topic: L. Suciu, The Role of Communication in Building the Peda-
gogical Relationship (2014b), L. Suciu, S., Şimon, Informing Strategies: building the communication framework (2015), L. Suciu, In search
of a balanced relationship in communication. Discursive strategies that create resonance (2017); L. Suciu, Practices of interaction between the
real and virtual worlds (2018), L. Suciu, M. Mocofan, Approaches to hate speech in cyberspace. A Metadiscursive Analysis (2021), L. Suciu,
A Look Inside Academic Communication During the Pandemic (2021).
Usually, the school interaction, based on the transfer of specialized knowledge is characterized by the presence of two types of
barriers: the cognitive one and the cultural one. This gap, due to cognitive and cultural barriers, generates an unequal positioning of
the interlocutors in the interactiondit is obvious that the teacher, as the holder/possessor of the information, is placed on a higher
position compared to the student, whose baggage of knowledge and culture is lower. Their positioning involves relational imbal-
ance and thus interaction is defined by social distance (Meirieu, 2010).
The power of words/communication is a subject that reveals two conceptions which, without excluding each other, are differ-
entiated by placing the emphasis on another aspect that the sending of a statement implies: the fulfillment of the preconditions of
the transmission, respectively, its effect. In the view of sociologists (Bourdieu, 1991), the power of communication lies in its
 Qualitative research approaches and designs: discourse analysis 147

exterior, namely in the achievement of external conditions (regarding status, role, framework, etc.) for a sender/a speaker to be able
to communicate (can only work if social conditions external to the linguistic logic of the statement are met). In other words, the
sender/the speaker must be legitimate to communicate. Defining the foundations of social power, social psychologists French
and Reaven (1959) show that the legitimacy of a sender is based on the understanding on the part of the interaction participants
that the sender has the right to demand obedience. Linguistic activity is, from this perspective, one of the various means available to
someone to exercise his/her power, depending on his/her social status.
On the other hand, researchers in pragmatics (Austin, 1970; Searle, 1972) consider that the power of communication is linked to
the power of words, emphasizing their effect on the receiver. They believe that through words we fulfill an action, they try to prove
how to do things with words. Based on the concepts of intentionality and action, pragmatics states the fact that in the linguistic expres-
sion (in the word) lies the force by which a sender can act on a receiver (Suciu, 2014a,b). Pragmatic theory implies the condition of
satisfying the extralinguistic premises of issuance, expressed in the form of the principle of legitimacy (one of the discursive prin-
ciples). For a statement to be accredited worthy of being believed and thus, followed by effect, it must be expressed by someone in
the right to do so, by an authority (Suciu, 2005).
The superior position of the sender, which underlies the principle of legitimacy, refers to the idea of responsibility, seriousness,
trust, authority that is entitled to demand obedience and which must therefore be listened to. Sometimes the legitimate status of the
sender, which coincides with the declaration of the fulfillment of the upstream of the discourse, is explicitly reflected at the linguistic
level of the statement, by inserting some morpho-lexical elements (the relative superlative) or rhetorical ones (antithesis) with the
function of arguments of the legitimacy and credibility of the locutor. Omnipotence, special vocation, power become arguments of
the sender’s legitimacy (Suciu, 2005, 2017).
In school interaction, the teacher enjoys the privileged position in interaction, i.e., the position of authority. This position is
based on the legitimacy conferred by the knowledge he/she holds, while the teacher-student relationship is marked by social
distance. The teacher’s verbal and nonverbal behavior implicitly transmits the meaning of his/her superior position as in these
examples: First document yourself, then we shall talk about it; I know everything, you know nothing! where the existing social distance
is emphasized. In the paper The Role of Communication in Building the Pedagogical Relationship we have highlighted some discursive
strategies may reduce the distance between the participants and re-balance the pedagogical relationship, for example strategies of
indirection (wouldn’t it be better to ., couldn’t you ., what about .), interrogatives strategies (Do you really think that .), impersonal
strategies (strategies generating an impersonal message) (it is adequate to .) etc. It is important to emphasize that the implemen-
tation of these strategies does not aim at eliminating the social distance, which proves necessary in this type of interaction, the
teacher’s role being to guide the student in the sphere of knowledge (Suciu, 2014a,b).
In the same register of avoidance to offend the sender (the student, in our case) there are also strategies of positive and negative
politeness contained by discourse analysis (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1991; Rovența-Frumușani, 2004), for example:

• assertion of a common territory: Don’t you think it’s .

• explicit formulation of observations attesting the interest, empathy of the sender toward the receiver: You have to be very tired;
You’re bored to ., are you?
• minimization of criticism, and of the refusal: I’m a little disappointed with your last work; That’s pretty farfetched
• inclusion of the receiver in the action expressed in the statement: Let’s see your work
We also emphasize the contribution of the discourse analysis to the investigation of communication through the referential works
of Leech (1983, 2006), Brown and Levinson (1987), Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1992, 1994) regarding politeness as a pertinent system of
analytical reporting in approaching verbal interaction in various contexts.
Being a face-to-face interaction, verbal behavior, is accompanied by the nonverbal one. Therefore, in order to reduce the teacher-
student distance, the contribution of nonverbal strategies is an advantage. In the book Bridges across the communication (2017) we
analyzed the statement of a specialist in education and of a psychotherapist specialized in human relationships, each addressing
a non-specialized audience. I revealed the function performed by mimicry, especially by the language of the eyes, by gestures in
creating that particular thread that weaves between the interlocutors in interaction. Contact is established through eye language,
attention is mobilized, a proposal for closeness is transmitted. We have found that at the level of the statement, language, style
and humor act complementarily, creating a relationship of proximity and familiarity between the sender and the audience, despite
the social distance existing in that interaction due to the authority of the sender (the specialist, the expert). These factors are related
to the sender’s ability to elaborate the discourse by applying linguistic strategies of rapprochement. Also important is the way in
which the sender relates to the audience in the transfer of the discourse and the manner in which he/she transmits it.
Timeliness, with the advent of new communication technologies, launches another challenge that the teacher has to face. The
study of verbal interaction in the academic environment during the pandemic (2020–2022) highlights aspects related to linguistic
and non-linguistic behaviors in the teacher-student interaction carried out online/remotely, such as: replacing the formal framework
of communication with the informal one, posting inappropriate photos as the interface at the meeting for the course or seminar on
the online platform, low feedback, low interactivity (up to the refusal of interaction), ignoring some explicitly expressed rules
regarding the carrying out of activities, neglecting the teacher’s moment of interpellation. Trying to explain these behaviors, we
have revealed the importance of academic spatial landmarks (the imposing building of the university, the class/seminar room,
the hallways, the library with the shelves full of books, the reading room, etc.) in order to set up the common cultural background.
The spatial landmarks function as marks/insignia of the place (the university), of the university culture, which compete to the
protagonists’ sharing of the cultural background, ensuring the transgression of the cultural barrier (Meirieu, 2010) and transmit
148 Qualitative research approaches and designs: discourse analysis

meanings that help the student to create a real and correct image of the academic environment. Thus, the student will be ready to
assume the appropriate role, updated in the congruence between the discourse and the context (Suciu, 2022).
In conclusion, the affective dimension (understood as regulation of the circulation of affections, cf. Meirieu, 2010), is respon-
sible for the reconfiguration of the discourse with the help of the linguistic and non-linguistic languages that give rise to sympathy
strategies. Under these conditions, it is possible to establish the relational balance between the participants in the interaction, which
ensures the transmission of information. Without canceling the social distance and the authority of the teacher, the highlighted
discursive strategies determine the success of the communication in educational context. The analysis of communication in educa-
tional settings attests to the contribution of discourse analysis to the explanation of the interaction in school, to the creation of
a common ground with the student/teacher, using its insights: pragmatics, anthropology and sociology. The results of this investigation
with the help of discourse analysis are relevant in terms of achieving more effective communication between the teacher and the
student, with impact on an improved student’s performance.

Conclusion

In our approach, we have set out on an incursion into the field of discourse analysis, trying to define it as a qualitative research, by
bringing together three angles of approach. First of all, starting from the peculiarities that define a qualitative research method, we
have identified them at the level of discourse analysis. This frame of reference outlines the descriptive picture of discourse analysis as
a qualitative research approach, by delimiting it from quantitative research. At the same time, by referring to the different uses of
discourse analysis in other fields (linguistics, rhetorical criticism, education), we have emphasized that this analytic perspective of
discourse study is helping to improve the communication and the activity in school. In order to reveal the meaning in texts/situ-
ations/processes, the example discussed reflects the role of the discourse analysis in communication and education.
The detailed presentation on the peculiarities of discourse analysis is intended to complement and support its definition. This
perspective highlight the contribution of the theories involved by the discourse analysis (pragmatics, sociological and anthropolog-
ical theories) to give a description of the discourse and of the dynamics of interaction in everyday reality. Through the examples we
have explained the functioning of the discourse analysis in finding the implicit meaning of the discourse.
The relevance of discourse analysis as a qualitative research is addressed by reference to education. The premise is the existence of
a cognitive and cultural gap in the teacher-student interaction, coming from the legitimacy of the teacher and the different cultural
belonging of the participants in the interaction. In order to demonstrate the possibility of overcoming the cognitive and cultural gap,
we have revealed several discursive strategies aimed at reducing the social distance between the participants in the discourse and at
rebalancing their relationship. The importance of applying the strategies lies in facilitating verbal exchanges in the educational envi-
ronment and, therefore, increasing efficiency in the teaching-learning activity. We believe that defining discourse analysis through
the three perspectivesdwhich are interconnected and supporting each otherdconfers individuality to this qualitative research
approach that may serve to enhance the effectiveness of communication in several professional contexts.

References

Books
Austin, J., 1970. Quand dire c’est faire. Seuil, Paris.
Badau, H.M., 2011. Tehnici de comunicare în social media. Polirom, Iași.
Baylon, C., 1991. Sociolinguistique Société, langue et discours. Nathan, Paris.
Benveniste, E., 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Gallimard, Paris, 1966 şi 1993.
Bourdieu, P., 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Polity Press.
Charaudeau, P., Maingueneau, D. (Eds.), 2002. Dictionnaire de l’analyse du discours. Seuil, Paris.
Ducrot, O., Schaeffer, J.-M., 1995. Nouveau dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences du langage. Seuil, Paris.
Eco, U., 1996. Limitele interpretarii. Pontica, Constanța.
Florescu, V., 1973. Retorica şi neoretorica: geneza; evoluţie; perspective. Academia Româna, București.
French, J., Reaven, B., 1959. The Bases of Social Power. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f00c/7fd21a9774865ef7a3ddf871aa731c84e295.pdf.
Gross, A., 2000. The Marriage of Rhetoric and Pragmatics. www.eserver.org/audio/!Gross.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C., 1990. Les intéractions verbales (I). Armand Colin, Paris.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C., 1991. L’implicite. Armand Colin, Paris.
Maingueneau, D., 1991. L’énonciation en linguistique française. Hachette, Paris.
Leech, G., 1989. Principles of Pragmatics. https://www.pdfdrive.com/principles-of-pragmatics-longman-linguistics-library-e161016717.html.
Mounin, G., 1975. La linguistique du XXe siècle. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.
Mucchielli, A. (Ed.), 2002. Dicționar al metodelor calitative în științele umane Și sociale. Polirom, Iași.
Rovenţa-Frumuşani, D., 2004. Analiza discursului Ipoteze şi ipostaze. Tritonic, București.
Schiffrin, D., 1994. Approaches to Discourse: Language as Social Interaction. Wiley-Blackwell.
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., Hamilton, H.E. (Eds.), 2001. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford.
Searle, J., 1972. Les actes du langage. Hermann, Paris.
Suciu, L., 2005. Discursul-semnatura al Instituţiei Miza unei identitaţi şi premisa unei relaţii. Orizonturi Universitare, Timişoara.
Suciu, L., 2014a. În cautarea sensului. De la analiza discursului la design-ul comunicarii. Casa Carții de Știința, Orizonturi Universitare, Cluj, Timișoara.
Suciu, L., 2017. Bridges Across the Communication. Lambert Academic Publishing.
 Qualitative research approaches and designs: discourse analysis 149

Chapters in books
Herring, S.C., 2001. Computer-mediated discourse. In: Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., Hamilton, H.E. (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford,
pp. 612–634.
Meirieu, P., 2010. Formatorii şi comunicarea. In: Cabin, P., Dortier, J.-F. (Eds.), Comunicarea. Polirom, Iaşi, pp. 198–202.
Suciu, L., 2019. Introductory chapter: discourse and discourse analysis. A retrospective approach. In: Suciu, L. (Ed.), Advances in Discourse Analysis. IntechOpen, London,
pp. 3–15.
Temple Adger, C., 2001. Discourse in educational settings. In: Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., Hamilton, H.E. (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.,
Oxford, pp. 503–518.
Tracy, K., 2001. Discourse analysis in communication. In: Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., Hamilton, H.E. (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford,
pp. 725–750.
Yule, G., 2006. Pragmatics. https://www.pdfdrive.com/pragmatics-by-george-yule-e163862273.html.
Thomas, J.A., 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. https://www.pdfdrive.com/meaning-in-interaction-an-introduction-to-pragmatics-e186528721.html.

Articles in proceedings
Suciu, L., 2014b. The role of communication in building the pedagogical relationship. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 116, 4000–40004.
Suciu, L., 2021. A look inside academic communication during the pandemic. In: Boldea, I. (Ed.), The Shades of Globalisation. Identity and Dialogue in an Intercultural World, vol. 8.
Arhipelag XXI Press, Tîrgu-Mureș, pp. 81–90.