VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY,HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES

APPROACHES TO DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

OUTLINE OF GROUP 1
ITEMS CONTENTS PRESENTERS
1 Discourse and Text Đỗ Thị Việt Hà

1.1 Discourse
1.2 Text Chu Thị Sinh
2. Approaches to text analysis Phạm Ninh Giang
3. Approaches to discourse analysis
 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY,HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES

Topic:
Approaches to the concept of discourse and text
 1. Discourse and Text

1.1.Discourse
1.1.1.Definition:
Discourse is a speech or piece of writing about a particular. In linguistics,
discourse refers to a unit of language longer than a single sentence.
 Discourse is the way in which language is used socially to convey broad
historical meanings. It is language identified by the social conditions
language can never be “neutral” because it bridges our personal and social
worlds. (Henry &Talor, 2002)
 1. Discourse and Text
 Discourse is the way in which language is used socially to convey broad
historical meanings. It is language identified by the social conditions
language can never be “neutral” because it bridges our personal and social
worlds. (Henry &Talor, 2002)
 Discourse in context may consist of only one or two words as in “step” or
“no smoking”. Alternatively, a piece of discourse can be hundreds of
thousands of words in length, as some novels are. A typical piece of
discourse is somewhere between these two extremes.
(Hinkel & Fotos, 2001)
 1. Discourse and Text

 Discourse as “systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of

action, beliefs, and practices that systematically construct the subjects and
the worlds of which they speak.” (Foucault, 1969, p.141)
In linguistics, discourse is generally considered to be the use of written or
spoken language in a social context. To study discourse is to analyze the use of
spoken or written language in a social context.
>>>A discourse analysis is based on the details of speech (and gaze and
gesture and action) or writing that are arguably deemed relevant in the context
and that are relevant to the arguments the analysis is attempting to make. A
discourse analysis is not based on all the physical features present, not even on
all those that might, in some conceivable context, be meaningful, or might be
meaningful in analysis with different purposes. (Gee, 2011, p.117)
 1. Discourse and Text
1.1.2. Reflections of discourse:
1 General such as speech, conversation, discussion;
2 Discursive presentation of a train of thought by means of a series of
statements;
3 Series of statements or utterances, chain of statements;
4 Form of a chain of statements/expressions; the manner in which they came
about (archaeology): scientific, poetic, religious discourse;
5 Rule-governed behaviour that leads to a chain or similarly interrelated
system of statements (=forms of knowledge) (medicine, psychology, etc.) (for
instance in the work of Michel Foucault);
 1. Discourse and Text

6 Language as something practised; spoken language (e.g. in the work of Paul

Ricoeur);
7 Language as a totality, the linguistic universe;
8 Discussion and questioning of validity criteria with the aim of producing
consensus among discourse participants (e.g. in the work of Urgen)
 1. Discourse and Text
1.2. Text
1.2.1.Definition:
A text can be defined as an object that can be read, whether it is a work of
literature, a lesson written on the blackboard, or a street sign. It is a coherent
set of signs that transmits some kind of informative message.
 A text can be any example of written or spoken language from something
as complex as a book to something as simple as the body of an email or the
work on the back of a cereal box.
 A text includes some information, specifically in the written form.
 1. Discourse and Text
1.2. Text
1.2.2.Genres of texts:
1 Narrative text varieties (tales, stories, etc.) rely on temporal ordering
principles.
2 Argumentative text varieties (explanations, scientific articles, etc.) use
contrastive devices.
3 Descriptive text varieties employ predominantly local (that is, spatial or
temporal) elements (as in descriptions, portrayals, etc.).
4 Instructive text varieties (such as textbooks) are both argumentative and
enumerative.
 1.3 Discourse and Text
1.3. Discourse and Text
1.3.1. Similarities between Discourse and Text
 Both text and discourse usually consist of sentences which communication
information.
1.3.2. Differences between Discourse and Text
Although many linguists have given different meanings to these two terms, there is no
clear cut definition between the two. Some also use these two terms as synonyms.
Text is made up of sentences and have the property of cohesion whereas discourse is
made up of utterances and have the property of coherence. (Widdowson,1973)
 1.3. Discourse and Text
1.3.2 Differences between Discourse and Text
 Text is usually a written form of communication information, which is a non-
interactive nature. In contrast, discourse can be from spoken, written, visual and audio
form, communicating information that is interactive in nature.
TEXT DISCOURSE
•.is made up of sentences. • is the use of such sentences.
• is made up of sentences having the • is made up of utterances having the
property of grammatical cohesion. property of coherence.
• is a message coded in auditory or • is an interpersonal activity/ transaction
visual medium between speaker and hearer
• is defined in terms of its being a • is viewed as a process.
physical product.
 1.3. Discourse and Text
1.3.2 Differences between Discourse and Text
TEXT DISCOURSE
•.refers to any written material that can be • is the use of language in a social context.
read.
• is usually a written form of • can be from spoken, written visual and audial
communication information which is a form, communicating information that is
non-interactive nature. interactive in nature.
• agent is not crucial • agent is crucial
• Examples: press report, street signs, • Examples: dialogues, conversations,
documents, etc. interactions in audio-visual programmes, etc
 1.3. Discourse and Text
1.3.2 Differences between Discourse and Text
There has been some confusion in the literature regarding the distinction between
“discourse analysis” and “text analysis”. It is a result of the confusion in the terms
“discourse” and “text”.
TEXT DISCOURSE
• Text analysis: deals with cohesion • Discourse analysis: investigates
and investigates written form. coherence and analyzes spoken form.
 2. Approaches to text analysis
As for text analysis, Fairclough’s approach is based on Systemic Funtional
Linguistics (SFL).

2 types of textual analysis

Linguistic analysis Intertextual analysis

 2. Approaches to text analysis

Whereas linguistic analysis shows how texts selectively draw upon linguistic
systems, intertextual analysis shows how texts selectively draw upon orders of
discourse – the particular configurations of conventionalized practices (genres,
discourse, narratives, etc.) which are available to text producers and interpreters in
particular social circumstances (on orders of discourse in this sense, see Fairclough,
1989, 1991a).
 3. Approaches to discourse analysis

1. Speech act theory (Hành vi lời nói)

2. Interactional Sociolinguistics (Ngôn ngữ học xã hội tương tác)

3. Ethnography of communication (Dân tộc học giao tiếp)

4. Pragmatics (Dụng học)

5. Conversation analysis (Phân tích hội thoại)

6. Variation approach (Biến đổi ngôn ngữ)

 1. Speech act theory

Speech act is an activity (debate, interview, discussion or a casual

conversation…) in which participants interact via language in some
conventional way to arrive at some outcome.

Speech act theory focuses on communicative acts and answer the

research question: How to do things with words?
 1. Speech act

Types of speech acts

Commissive:
Commissive: ‘bet’,
‘bet’, ‘guarantee,’
‘guarantee,’ ‘pledge’,
‘pledge’, ‘promise’
‘promise’ ‘swear’.
‘swear’.
That’s
That’s the
the last
last time
time I’ll
I’ll waste
waste my
my money
money on
on so-
so- called
called bargains.
bargains.

Expressive:
Expressive: ‘apologise’,
‘apologise’, ‘deplore’,
‘deplore’, ‘thank’,
‘thank’, ‘welcome’-
‘welcome’-
Well done, Elisabeth!
Well done, Elisabeth!

Declaration: ‘I name this child’.

Representative:
Representative: ‘affirm’,
‘affirm’, ‘believe,’
‘believe,’ ‘conclude’,
‘conclude’, ‘report’…
‘report’…
II think
think the
the Berlin
Berlin Wall
Wall came
came down
down in
in 1989.
1989.

Directive:
Directive: ‘ask’,
‘ask’, ‘challenge’,
‘challenge’, ‘command’,
‘command’, ‘request’.
‘request’.
Pass
Pass me
me the
the towel,
towel, will
will you?
you?
 1. Speech act

Các loại hành vi lời nói

Hứa hẹn (commissive): Ví dụ: Bố sẽ đưa con đi xem phim (hứa hẹn).

Bày tỏ (expressive): Ví dụ: Canh cua ngon quá.

Tuyên bố (declarative): Ví dụ: Tôi tuyên bố khai mạc trại hè Sầm Sơn 95.

Khẳng định (assertive / representative).

Cầu khiến (directive): Ví dụ: Ngồi xuống đi.

2. Interactional sociolinguistics
 2. Interactional sociolinguistics

International sociolinguistics focuses on how people from different cultures may share
grammatical knowledge of a language but contextualize what is said differently to produce
different messages (Gumperz, 1982).

It answers the research question: What are they doing?

 2. Interactional sociolinguistics

Teacher: James, what does this word say?

James: I don't know.

Teacher: Well, if you don't want to try, someone else will. Freddy?

Feddy: Is that a "p" or "b"?

Teacher: (encouragingly) It's a "p".

Freddy: Pen.

A: Chị đi đâu đấy?

B:
 3. Ethnography of communication

Ethnography of communication is used to enhance communication with group members, make

sense of group members’ decisions, and distinguish groups from one another, among other things.

It focuses on social and linguistic meanings created during communication and answers the
research question: How does discourse reflect culture?
4. Approaches to the concept of discourse and text
4. Pragmatics
4.1 Defining pragmatics

Pragmatics is another broad approach to discourse: it deals with three concepts:

meaning, context, communication.
Pragmatics was defined by Morris (1983) as a branch of semiotics, the study of signs.
Morris (p.81) viewed semiosis (the process in which something functions as a sign)
as having four parts
4. Approaches to the concept of discourse and text
4. Pragmatics
4.2 Concepts of Gricean pragmatics

2 concepts of Gricean pragmatics

Speaker meaning The cooperative principle

4. Approaches to the concept of discourse and text
4. Pragmatics
 Speaker meaning:

• Natural meaning: is devoid of human intentionality.

Example: Those spots mean measles.

• Non - Natural meaning: is roughly equivalent to intentional communication.

Example (of Grice: 1957): Those three rings on the bell (of the bus) mean that “the
bus is full”(p.53).
4. Approaches to the concept of discourse and text
4. Pragmatics
 The cooperative principle:
- The most noticeable features of conversational discourse is that it is very “co-
operative.
Example: Participants are co-operating with each other.

- Grice described the cooperative principle with its 4 maxims. (Maxims = Rules)
“Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the state at which it
occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are
engaged”. (Grice, 1975)
  The cooperative principle: 4 specific maxims

• Quantity: make your contribution as informative as is required, but not more, or

less than is required.
• Quality (say the truth): - try to make your contribution one that is true.
- do not say what you believe to be safe
- do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
• Relation: be relevant.
• Manner: - avoid obscurity of expression.
- avoid ambiguity.
- be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity) and orderly.

We assume that people are telling the truth, being relevant, and trying to be as clear as
they can.
Hedges:

• Quantity
- As you probably know, …; Cut a long story short, …, I wont bore you will all the details, …

• Quality
- Sort of … kind of …. : His hair was kind of long. (for accuracy).
- As far as I know
- Possibly … likely … (not certain)
- I’m not absolutely sure, but …
- Correct me if I’m wrong, …
- Think or feel (not know)

• Relation: Any way, …; Well, anyway; Oh, by the way … (to mention something unconnected)

• Manner: I’m not sure if this makes sense, but …

4. Pragmatics
 The cooperative principle:

Example: Which maxim is flouted?

Daughter: Mum, can I have a tattoo?
Mum: Right, after I have my nose pierced.
 4. Pragmatics
Implicatures

Example:
Mary: Are you coming to the party tonight?
Laura: I’ve got an exam tomorrow.

 Implicature is an additional meaning conveyed by speaker adhering to cooperative

principle.
5. Conversation analysis

5.1 Defining conversation analysis

- A conversation is an activity in which two or more people take turns at speaking.

e.g. A: This is Mr. Smith may I help you

B: I can’t hear you
A: This is Mr. Smith
B: Smith.

- Conversational analysis is an approach to the study of social interaction, embracing

both verbal and non-verbal conduct, in situations of everyday life.
5. Conversation analysis

TURN – TAKING

• The basic structure of a conversation: TURN(S)

• The speaker and the hearer take TURNS talking. One person speaks at one time,
and the other listens, and then switch places.

Example:
A: Hello!
B: Hi
A: How are you?
B: Fine.
 5. Conversation analysis
How do speakers mark their turns as complete?
 By asking a question.
 By pausing at the end of a completes syntactic structure like a phrase or a
sentence.
Example:
 Eye contact.
Mum: Hello
Son: Oh hello mum! How are you?
Mum: Very well, and you?
Son: Thanks
Mum: That’s good (0.1, (2, 3...5 seconds).
Mum: We had torrential rain today. (A new topic initiated).
5. Conversation analysis

 Overlaps and interruptions

- Only one person speaks at a time and there tends to be avoidance of silence. When
interlocutors speak at the same time; both take the turns.

Example:
A: Didn’t you [know why-
B: [ But he must’ve been there by two
A: Yes but you knew where he was going.
 [ = overlap
 5. Conversation analysis

 Filled pauses or pause fillers

Example:
A: That’s their favourite restaurant because they ... enjoy French food and when they
were ... in France they couldn’t believe that ... you know the food was ... er amazing
and they ... er really liked it.
B: What was that restaurant?

.... = Pause ; You know, er = fillers

6. Variation analysis (Variation theory)
 Defining variation analysis

• L & W argue that fundamental narrative structures are evident in spoken narratives
of personal experience.

• Developed by Lobow (1972) and in particular his description of the structure of

spoken narratives as made a made a major contribution to the analysis of discourse.
6. Variation analysis (Variation theory)

 Structure of a narrative of personal experience:

1- Abstract (summary of story, with its point)

2-Orientation (in respect of place, time and situation)
3-Evaluation (narrators attitude towards narrative)
4-Resolution (protagonist’s approach to crisis)
5-Coda (point about narrative as a whole)
 6. Variation analysis (Variation theory)
The Elements Explanation
Abstract The introductory part of the narrative.
A brief summary of the event to spark attention
Orientation Description of the people or characters who will interact in
the story.
Complication The actual events of the narrative.
Action The occurrences that move it ahead.
Evaluation The point, or reason, the narrative is being told.
Resolution Conclusion; end of the narrative
Coda Relevance of the narrative to every-day life
These elements are not necessarily present in all narratives.
These elements are not distributed in the same way in all narratives.
 Conclusion

To summarize, the approaches to discourse analysis described in this book suggest

that what is appropriate “is to examine structure in the light of functional requirement
and function in the light of structural requirement” Sadock, 1984: 142) Thus, neither
radical structural nor radical functional analyses are appropriate. Rather, combining
facets of both types of analyses may help to balance the weaknesses of one mode of
analysis with the strengths of another.
 REFERENCES

1.Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction Discourse Analysis theory and method: Theory and
method (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
2. Cook, G. (1989). Discourse . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Gillian Brown & George Yule. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
4.Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse
analysis (B. Jenner, Trans.). London, UK: Sage
5.Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
6.Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistics and intertextual analysis.
Discourse and Society, 3(2), 193-217