INTRODUCTION TO

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
introduction
◻ Moving from one layer of language to another,
linguists consider the discourse level the apex of
linguistic description. The enterprise of Discourse
Analysis is to uncover the regularities of language
that surpass the sentence_ the traditional 'highest'
unit of description _ and that encompass the
context of its use. Discourse Analysis is
interdisciplinary in nature and has applications in
several fields to which language has a particular
relevance.
introduction
◻ Moving from one layer of language to another,
linguists consider the discourse level the apex of
linguistic description. The enterprise of Discourse
Analysis is to uncover the regularities of language
that surpass the sentence_ the traditional 'highest'
unit of description _ and that encompass the
context of its use. Discourse Analysis is
interdisciplinary in nature and has applications in
several fields to which language has a particular
relevance.
introduction
◻ Moving from one layer of language to another,
linguists consider the discourse level the apex of
linguistic description. The enterprise of Discourse
Analysis is to uncover the regularities of language
that surpass the sentence_ the traditional 'highest'
unit of description _ and that encompass the
context of its use. Discourse Analysis is
interdisciplinary in nature and has applications in
several fields to which language has a particular
relevance.
Discourse & Discourse Analysis
◻ Etymologically, the word ‘discourse’ dates back to
the 14th century. It is taken from the Latin word
‘discursus’ which means a ‘conversation’
(McArthur,
◻ 1996). In its current usage, this term conveys a
number of significations for a variety of purposes,
but in all cases it relates to language, and it
describes it in some way.
◻ To start with, discourse is literally defined as ‘a
serious speech or piece of writing on a particular
subject’ (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary
◻ English, 2001, p.388). In this general sense, it
incorporates both the spoken and written modes
although, at times, it is confined to speech being
designated as ‘a serious conversation between
people’ (ibid).
◻ Carter (1993) specifies several denotations of the word
‘discourse.’
◻ First, it refers to the topics or types of language used in
definite contexts. Here, it is possible to talk of political
discourse, philosophical discourse and the like.
◻ Second, the word 'discourse' is occasionally employed to
stand for what is spoken, while the word ‘text’ is
employed to denote what is written. It is important to
note, however, that the text/discourse distinction
highlighted here is not always sharply defined. Nunan
(1993) shows that these two terms are sometimes used
interchangeably and in many instances treated differently.
◻ Third, this word is used to establish a significant
contrast with the traditional notion of ‘sentence’, the
‘highest’ unit of language analysis: discourse refers
to any naturally occurring stretch of language. In
this connection, Trask (1999) clarifies that a
discourse is not confined to one speaker or writer,
but it can embrace the oral or written exchanges
produced by two or more people. It is this last sense
of the term that constitutes the cornerstone of the
approach known as Discourse Analysis.
Discourse Analysis
◻ To embark on defining discourse analysis
(henceforth DA), one would inevitably tackle two
divergent approaches to language in general and
discourse in particular: the formal approach and the
functional approach. Schiffrin (ibid) combines both
approaches when designating DA as ‘the study of
language use above and beyond the sentence’
(p.170).
◻ paradigm, DA is seen as the exploration of
language use by focusing on pieces larger than
sentences. Schiffrin (1994) elucidates that
discourse is merely a higher level in the hierarchy:
morpheme, clause and sentence (as stated
originally by Zellig Harris in his first reference to
DA); she also explains that the pursuit of DA is to
depict the internal structural relationships that tie
the units of discourse to each other: to describe
formal connectedness within it.
◻ The second trend is functional in perspective: it is
not so much concerned with intra-sentential
relations as much as with language use. Brown and
Yule's (1983) conception seems to be compatible
with this paradigm: The analysis of discourse is,
necessarily, the analysis of language in use. As
such, it cannot be restricted to the description of
linguistic forms
◻ independent of the purposes or functions which these
forms are designed to serve in human affairs. (p.1)
◻ The focus in this conception is on the regularities which
utterances show when situated in contexts. Thus, it is
obvious that the aspects of the world in which an
utterance is used can also contribute to the
meaningfulness of discourse. Van Els et al. (1984), in
this respect, argue that ‘the study of language in context
will offer a deeper insight into how meaning is attached
to utterances than the study of language in isolated
sentences’ (p.94)
Linguistic Forms and Functions
◻ The functions of Language
◻ The analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the
analysis of language in use. As such, iy cannot be
restricted to the description of linguistic forms
independent of the purposes or functions which
those forms are designed to serve in hulman affair.
While some linguists may concentrate on
determining the formal properties of language, the
discourse analysis is committed to an investigation
of what the language is used for.
◻ According to Brown & Yule, language serves two
major functions : the function which language
serves in the expression of content described as
transactional and the function involved in
expressing social relations and personal attitudes
described as interactional.
◻ 1. the transactional view:
While linguists frequently acknowledge that
language may be used to perform many
communicative functions, they nonetheless make the
general assumption that the most important function
is the communication of information.
◻ Bennett (1976: 5) remarks 'it seems likely that
communication is primarily a matter of a speaker's
seeking either to inform a hearer of something or to
enjoin some action upon him'.
◻ We shall call the language which is used to convey 'factual or ,
propositional information' primarily transactional language.
◻ In primarily transactional language we assume that what
the speaker (or writer) has primarily in mind is the efficient
transference of information. Language used in such a situation
is primarily 'message oriented. It is important that the recipient
gets the informative detail correct. Thus if a policeman gives
directions to a traveler, a doctor tells a nurse how to administer
medicine to a patient, or a scientist describes an experiment, in
each case it matters that the speaker should make what he says
(or-writes)_clear. There will be unfortunate (even disastrous)
consequences in the real world if the message is not properly
understood by the recipient.
◻ 2. the interactional view
◻ While linguists and philosophers of language have, in
general, paid particular attention to the use of language
for the transmission of 'factual or propositional
information', sociologists and sociolinguists have been
particularly concerned with the use of language to
establish and maintain social relationships. In
sociological and anthropological literature the phatic use
of language has been frequently commented on -
particularly the conventional use of language go open
talk-exchanges and to close them.
Conversational analysts have been particularly concerned with the
use of language to negotiate role-relationships, peer-solidarity, the
exchange of turns in a conversation, the-saving of face of both
speaker and hearer (cf. Labov, 1972a; Brown and Levinson, 1974;
Lakoff, 1973). It is clearly the case that a great deal of everyday
human interaction is characterized by the primarily interpersonal
rather than the primarily transactional use of language
For instance: When two strangers are standing shivering at a bus-
stop in an icy wind and one turns to the other and says 'My
goodness, it‘s cold', it is difficult to suppose that the primary
intention of the speaker is to convey information. It seems much
more reasonable to suggest that the speaker is indicating a
readiness to be friendly and to talk.
Spoken & Written Language
◻ From the point of view of production, it is clear
that spoken and written language make somewhat
different demands on language-producers. The
speaker has available to him the full range of
'voice quality' e f a ( a s well as facial expression,
postural and gestural systems). Armed with these
he can always override the effect of the words he
speaks.
◻ Not only is the speaker controlling the production of
communicative systems which are different from those controlled
by the writer, he is also processing that production under
circumstances which are considerably more demanding. The
speaker must monitor what it is that he has just said, and
determine whether it matches his intentions, while he is uttering
his current phrase and) monitoring that, and simultaneously
planning his next utterance and fitting that into the overall pattern
of what he wants to say and monitoring, moreover, not only his
own performance but its reception by his hearer. He has no
permanent record of what he has said earlier, and only under
unusual circumstances does he have notes which remind him
what he wants to say next.
◻ The writer, on the contrary, may look over what he
has already written, pause between each word with
no fear of his interlocutor interrupting him, take his
time in choosing a particular word, even looking it
up in the dictionary if necessary, check his progress
with his notes, reorder what he has written, and even
change his mind about what he wants to say.
Whereas the speaker is under considerable press utre
to keep on talking during the period allotted to him
the writer is characteristically under no pressure
There are, of course, advantages- fo-r th--e speaker. H- e can observe his
interlocutor and, if he wishes to, modify what heis saying, to make it
more accessoble ot more acceptable to his hearer. The writer has no
access to immediate feedback and simply has to imagine the reader's
reaction. It is interesting to observe the behaviour of individuals when
given a choice of conducting a piece of business in person or in writing.
Under some circumstances a face-to-face interaction is preferred but, in
others, for a varietv of different reasons, the individual may prefer to
conduct his transaction in writing. Whereas in a spoken interaction the
speaker has the advantage of being able to monitor his listener's minute-
by-minute reaction to what he says, he also suffers from the
disadvantage of exposing his own feelings ('leaking'; Ekman & Friesen,
1969) and of having to speak clearly and concisely and make immediate
response to whichever way his interlocutor reacts.