Discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies, is a general term for a number of approaches to

analyze written, vocal, or sign language use or any significant semiotic event. The objects of
discourse analysis -discourse, writing, conversation, communicative event- are variously
defined in terms of coherent sequences of sentences, propositions, speech, or turns-at-talk.
Contrary to much of traditional linguistics, discourse analysts not only study language use
‘beyond the sentence boundary', but also prefer to analyze 'naturally occurring' language use,
and not invented examples. Text linguistics is related. The essential difference between
discourse analysis and text linguistics is that it aims at revealing socio-psychological
characteristics of a person/persons rather than text structure. Discourse analysis has been
taken up in a variety of social science disciplines, including linguistics, education, sociology,
anthropology, social work, cognitive psychology, social psychology, area studies, cultural
studies, international relations, human geography, communication studies, and translation
studies, each of which is subject to its own assumptions, dimensions of analysis, and
methodologies. Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics and semiotics which studies the ways in
which context contributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory,
conversational implicature, talking interaction and other approaches to language behavior in
philosophy, sociology, linguistics and anthropology. Unlike semantics, which examines
meaning that is conventional or "coded" in a given language, pragmatics studies how the
transmission of meaning depends not only on structural and linguistic knowledge (e.g.,
grammar, lexicon, etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance,
any pre-existing knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and other
factors. In this respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome apparent
ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner, place, time etc. of an utterance.

They are related fields but Discourse analysis deals with texts and pragmatics takes several
units. Besides, in discourse analysis there are lots of elements that can be classified as
pragmatical features. Prototypical case is oral texts analysis. Oral texts always include context
related information.

There was a similar discussion many years ago at the Linguist List. For many, the two are the
same. But they can be very different when examining their core areas. Linguistic pragmatics as
theoretical pragmatics is more interested in utterance comprehension. That is mostly related
to utterance only, which is a relatively small unit. Discourse analysis, when concerned with
sampling and analysing discourse structures, is not that much focused on meaning
interpretation. It can be very structure-oriented. Discourse occurs at macro-level which
includes more well-known and global issues like feminism, Islamism, etc. Discourse dictates
the way language users employ the language (i.e. pragmatics).Pragmatics occurs at micro-level
and is the language use dictated by discourse. Pragmatics handles language use in context. It is
mainly engaged with the analysis of use of sentences. Discourse analysis focuses more on one
paragraph, one article. However, discourse analysis can be done using a pragmatic framework,
such as speech act theory. Please refer to Holmes (2014) for more details. The most important
difference between discourse analysis and pragmatics is that while discourse makes its main
focus on organized set of utterances, pragmatics analyzes individual utterances in context, i.e.
organized set of words. There is no consensus about this, but, briefly, it depends on what view
of pragmatics you adhere to. If your view is the narrow view (Anglo-American view or
Micropragmatics'), then Pragmatics is just one of the sources of DA (that is, you resort to
Pragmatics when doing DA in order to study certain phenomena such as reference, speech acts
or implicatures), but if your view of pragmatics is the Continental or broad view (Macro-
pragmatics), then there is very little or no difference between Pragmatics and DA, because
both are defined as the study of language in use, of text and context altogether, of the
phenomenon of linguistic communication.

Discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies, is a general term for a number of approaches
toanalyze written, vocal, or sign language use or any significant semiotic event. The objects of
discourse analysis -discourse, writing, conversation, communicative event- are variously
defined in terms of coherent sequences of sentences, propositions, speech, or turns-at-talk.
Contrary to much of traditional linguistics, discourse analysts not only study language
use'beyond the sentence boundary', but also prefer to analyze 'naturally occurring' language
use, andnot invented examples. Text linguistics is related. The essential difference between
discourseanalysis and text linguistics is that it aims at revealing socio-psychological
characteristics of aperson/persons rather than text structure.Discourse analysis has been
taken up in a variety of social science disciplines, including linguistics,education, sociology,
anthropology, social work,cognitive psychology, social psychology, areastudies, cultural
studies, international relations, human geography, communication studies, andtranslation
studies, each of which is subject to its own assumptions, dimensions of analysis,
andmethodologies.Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics and semiotics which studies the ways
in which contextcontributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory,
conversational implicature, talkin interaction and other approaches to language behavior in
philosophy, sociology, linguistics andanthropology. Unlike semantics, which examines meaning
that is conventional or "coded" in a givenlanguage, pragmatics studies how the transmission of
meaning depends not only on structural andlinguistic knowledge (e.g., grammar, lexicon, etc.)
of the speaker and listener, but also on thecontext of the utterance, any pre-existing
knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of thespeaker, and other factors. In this
respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able toovercome apparent ambiguity,
since meaning relies on the manner, place, time etc. of an utterance.Pragmatics; the science of
relation of signs to their interpreters (interrelationship between language,messages and
language usesdiscourse is language functioning in a context (see Schmidt 2012)I see language
as a textile (fabric, cloth) or like a cake. discourse is a piece of that cloth or cake.who made the
cake, how, where, when, ... & of course the elements used make a difference.pragmatics of
discourse make differencesthe prime minister in the British Parliament reports;behind him a
group from his party say

yeah

.facing him are a group from a different party they might also say

yeah.
 but how they say it with arising or falling tone, will certainly make a differencelanguage
functioning in either one of these two cases is discourse what makes the meaning of thesame
text (yeah) different is pragmatics.

Pragmatics

is the study of

meaning in context

while

discourse analysis

deals with the

"flow"

(orcoherence) of language in use and the "patterns" 'above' and 'beyond' the sentence
level.Discourse analysis is allied to pragmatics on the one hand, and their fields of investigation
are quitedifferent on the other. Pragmatics is traditionally labeled in contrast with semantics,
and primarilyconcerned with language in use. In modern linguistics, pragmatics is applied to
the studyof language from the point of view of users, especially of the choice they make, the
constraints theyencounter in using language in social interaction and effects their use of
language has on theother participants in an act of communication. Discourse analysis is
specifically about theunderstanding and examination of spoken or written language in actual
communication. Discourseanalysis is to some extent more application-oriented as opposed to
pragmatics; pragmatics sustainsDiscourse analysis with theoretical preparation in turn.
What is the relation of pragmatics to discourse analysis?
Pragmatics is a subfield in the philosophy of language, specifically those aspects of language
that relate to the manner in which words are used to mean more than its literal
decontextualized meanings and how we manage to understand such usage (e.g., implicatures,
metaphors, etc.).Discourse analysis is a term used to denote a wide gamut of analytic methods
devised in order to uncover the manner in which knowledge may be derived from the
examination of language use. This may include conversation analysis, narrative analysis,
ethnomethodology, frame analysis and many others. Pragmatics is a subfield in the philosophy
of language, specifically those aspects of language that relate to the manner in which words
are used to mean more than its literal decontextualized meanings and how we manage to
understand such usage (e.g., implicatures, metaphors, etc.).Discourse analysis is a term used to
denote a wide gamut of analytic methods devised in order to uncover the manner in which
knowledge may be derived from the examination of language use. Thismay include
conversation analysis, narrative analysis, ethnomethodology, frame analysis and manyothers.
Pragmatics as explained by the Palo Alto group of psychologists is the study and practice of
theintention of a particular utterance. Is an utterance meant to convince, threaten, suggest,
ask aquestion, etc. In other words, what is actionable about an utterance and has the speaker
made itevident through tone, rhythm, or emphasis.Discourse analysis is a wide field, which can
include pragmatics, but I have seen it used mostfrequently in attempts to understand
preference, valence, and attitudinal analysis, either in commoneveryday interaction or in
speeches and other presentations. Obviously discourse analysis usuallyrequires a recording or
transcription of language since it would be difficult to analyze a liveconversation or speech.

There are many ways to slice this question. One approach to making the distinction would be
tothink of "discourse analysis" as having a greater focus on the form of the language
(essentially anextension of syntactic analysis above the level of the sentence - looking at
cohesion, coherence, andmacrostructure), whereas pragmatics would look at the illocutionary
(functional purpose) andperlocutionary (response to) elements of the language used.
Pragmatics analysis is part ofdiscourse analysis in this framing. This means that you can,
conceptually, do discourse analysis thatignores the pragmatic dimension of the discourse, even
if that is rare. That said, much of the workthat falls under the label of discourse analysis is
focused on the interface between the content andpurpose of the language being used and
how the linguistic and social context influences themeaning.Pragmatics is often associated
with theories of language use such as speech acts, relevance,politeness...etc. Discourse
analysis broadly analysizes meaning (of language use) in differentcontexts, using different
approaches, with different genres (e,g. ethnographic, multimodal,conversational). One
particular pragmatic approach can pass as type of discourse analysis.Pragmatics and discourse
analysis are two related ways of framing the manner in which languageinteracts with contexts
in defining realities. Of course, that interrelates the two approaches so closelythat a certain
type of ambiguity remains in distinguishing them. However, although both are inscribedby
context and the organisation of language to produce meaning in specific contexts, if they are
bothviewed in terms of systems, pragmatics can be considered as a sub-system of discourse
analysis.Pragmatics refers to specific frames of reality and context, and specific meanings
being assigned tothe interpretation of a context and its reality by the choice of word, sign or
symbol due to the natureof the organisation of text and context, and hence the implied
intentions of the initiator of the text.Discourse analysis on the other hand, aiming at a broader
view of reality, pursues framing andmeaning making through an emphasis on interdisciplinarity
because of the complexity of context. Itpursues both meaning making and knowledge
production through the frames of possibilities andhabits below the level of consciousness,
including the ideological, the socio-cultural, thephilosophical, psychological, etc., dimensions
of context and interaction. In effect, discourse analysismoves beyond intention and implicature
(pragmatics) towards making the levels of unconscious andits possibilities conscious for
meaning making, and knowledge production.

Pragmatics is a part of the discourse analysis, they are closely related. The pragmatics studies
thebehavior of the subject who speaks in action and the analysis of the discourse studies, the
verbal,nonverbal and nonverbal languages.

What is the relation of pragmatics to discourseanalysis?

I think a better question might be what is the relation between discourse and
pragmatics.Discourse analysis is the breaking down of discourse and analyzing it for its
meaning,function, and structure. Pragmatics and discourse (verbal discourse) are intertwined
and isan interaction between or among individuals based upon familiarity of culture,
perceptionsand formality. Language itself is derived from and interrelated with social factors
that arelearned from your environment and from your culture. We often separate out
componentsof pragmatics and language to study them, but they are highly synergistic and
complex.Basically, discourse analysis is the pragmatic analysis of a text or a piece of
spokendiscourse. Let us see the definition of pragmatics from Wikipedia:

Pragmatics

is a subfield of linguistics and semiotics that studies the ways in which contextcontributes to
meaning.Then it goes on to point out the difference between pragmatics and semantics:Unlike
semantics, which examines meaning that is conventional or "coded" in a givenlanguage,
pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only onstructural and
linguistic knowledge (e.g., grammar, lexicon, etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the
context of the utterance, any pre-existing knowledge about those involved,the inferred intent
of the speaker, and other factors.This is exactly what discourse analysis is about. While the
meaning given in the text itself isstill important, one must remember that no text (or piece of
spoken discourse) exists in a vacuum. Every text has a context. There is always a reason why a
text was written

–
or aspoken phrase was uttered

in the first place. And the objective of discourse analysis is tosee how these factors contribute
to the meaning of the text