Chapter-3

TEXT AND DISCOURSE

3.1. Text
In their book, Cohesion in English (1976, p. 1) Halliday and Hasan define that
„text‟ is any spoken or written passage of unlimited length which forms a whole unit.
A collection of unrelated sentences can simply be distinguished from a text in which
the sentences are connected to each other and provide meaning. A text can simply be
described as spoken or written, prose or verse, dialogue or monologue, and from a
single proverb to an entire play. Text is also defined as “the verbal record of a
communicative event” (Brown & Yule, 1983, p.190). From these definitions, it can
be known that text exists in both spoken and written form. Spoken form can be seen
in conversation, speech, etc. While, written form can be seen in articles, newspapers,
stories, etc.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) have given the most appropriate definition of
„text‟. They assert that “a text is a unit of language in use. It is not a grammatical unit,
like a clause or a sentence; and it is not defined by its size. A text is not something
that is like a sentence, only bigger; it is something that differs from a sentence in kind.
A text is best regarded as a semantic unit: a unit not of form but of meaning” (pp.1-2).
Text cannot be described through grammatical ingredient only but a semantic through
its aspect. Text is a combination of the sentences that make a unity in sense and
meaning, and it is different in type from a sentence. It can also be said that anything
which can be read and deciphered /decoded for meaning is text. Text has in it some
meaning / message to offer to reader and listener.
Generally, in any text, apart from the first sentence, each sentence shows some
type of cohesion with the previous sentence (Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p.293).
Cohesion is textual evidence of a unity or link which is called coherence.
3.2. Texture
According to Halliday and Hasan, sentences make a text which depends on
“cohesive relationships” within and between sentences which produce “texture”. They
say “A text has texture and this is what distinguishes it from something that is not a
text.... The texture is provided by the COHESIVE RELATION” (1976, p.2). The
cohesive relationships are created in a text “where the INTERPRETATION of some
element in the discourse is dependent on that of another. The one PRESUPPOSES the

40
other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse to it”
(1976, p.4).They give the example as:
“Wash and core six cooking apples. Put them into a fireproof dish.” (1976,
p.2)
The word „them‟ in the second sentence refers back to „six cooking apples‟ of
the first sentence, this is called anaphora. This anaphoric function of „them‟ provides
cohesion to the two sentences so that it is understood as a whole and the two
sentences together constitute a text.
The texture is a concept which expresses the „property of being a text‟
(Halliday & Hassan, 1976, p.2).They use another term which is responsible for
„texture‟ in „text‟. The term is „tie‟. They say: “Tie is a term for one occurrence of a
pair of cohesively related items” (Halliday and Hassan, 1976, p. 3).
Halliday and Hassan give the following example:
“Wash and core six cooking apples. Put them into a fireproof dish.” (1976,
p.2)
In the sentences above „them‟ is referring back to six cooking apples and
„them‟ is producing cohesion between the two sentences. Here, the word „them‟ is
reference and reference is a „tie‟ in this example. It is an example in which only one
tie/reference occurs and joins the two sentences.
There are two ways in which sentences connect together within a text, they are
called cohesion and coherence.
3.3. Cohesion
Halliday and Hasan have introduced the concept of cohesion in their book
Cohesion in English in 1976. According to them, Cohesion is a semantic concept
which is used to describe the relation of meanings that exist within a text and defines
it as a text (p.4). They further state that “Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of
some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another” (p.4). They also point
out that cohesion as, “a set of possibilities that exists in the language for making text
hang together: The potential that the speaker or the writer has at his disposal… Thus,
cohesion as a process always involves one item pointing to another; whereas, the
significant property of the cohesive relation… is the fact that one item provides the
source for the interpretation of another” (pp.18-19). Cohesion can be traced within the
text. It is present in textual form which can be detected by the interactants.

41
3.4. Elements of Cohesion
There are various elements present in the text that links the items with each
other. Such elements are mutually joined within the sequence of the text. Cohesion
means the grammatical and lexical components on the surface of a text which create
the link between the elements of the text (Tanskanen, 2006, p.7). Halliday and Hasan
(1976) classify cohesion into two broad categories: Grammatical cohesion and
Lexical cohesion. Grammatical Cohesion consists of reference, substitution, ellipsis,
and conjunction, while Lexical Cohesion consists of reiteration and collocation.
The following diagram shows the elements of cohesion which is based on
Halliday and Hasan‟s study 1976.
Elements of Cohesion
Grammatical Cohesion Lexical Cohesion
Exophoric Reference
(Situational)
Repetition

Endophoric Anaphoric (to Synonyms

Reference (Textual) preceding text)
Reference Reiteration
Cataphoric Superordinate

(to following text)

General word

Substitution

Ellipsis
Collocation
Conjunction

3.4.1. Grammatical Cohesion

Grammatical Cohesion is a semantic connection that marks the surface
between clauses and sentences in a written discourse, and between utterance and turns
in speech (McCarthy, 1991, p.34). Halliday and Hassan (1976) provide us with the
fundamental categories of grammatical cohesion indicating that we can systematize

42
this concept by classifying it into a small number of distinct categories. They refer to
them as: reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction. These categories have a
theoretical basis and particular types of grammatical cohesion, which also make it
possible to describe and analyze texts in a practical way (p.13).
3.4.1.1. Reference
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976, p. 3), a reference item is an item that
cannot be interpreted semantically in its own rights. It can be interpreted by looking at
other elements it refers to. They state that “reference is the relation between an
element of the text and something else by reference to which it is interpreted in the
given instance” (p.308). In English, reference items are indicated through the use of
pronouns (e.g. he, she, it, they, him, etc.), demonstratives (e.g. this, that, these, those
etc.), the article e.g. the, and items e.g. such a (McCarthy, 1991, p.35). In reference,
“the information to be retrieved is the referential meaning, the identity of the
particular thing or class of things that is being referred to; and the cohesion lies in the
continuity of reference, whereby the same thing enters into the discourse a second
time” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p.31). Reference can generally be divided into two
different types: Endophoric Reference and Exophoric Reference.
3.4.1.1. a. Endophoric Reference or Endophora
It is also known as Textual Reference. It is a type of reference that is inside the
text. It is of two types: Anaphoric Reference and Cataphoric Reference.
3.4.1.1. a. i. Anaphoric Reference
Anaphora or Anaphoric reference refers back to somebody or something that
has been previously mentioned in the text. It is generally indicated by using personal
pronouns for example: he, she, they, or it and possessive pronouns for example: mine
or her (Clark, 1996, p.57). For the purpose of cohesion, anaphoric reference is the
most important as “it provides a link with a preceding portion of the text” (Halliday
and Hassan, 1976, p. 51).
For example:
Saad dropped the cup and it broke into pieces.
Here, the pronoun „it‟ is an anaphoric reference because „it‟ refers back
to the noun „Saad‟ in the sentence.

43
3.4.1.1. b. ii. Cataphoric Reference or Cataphora
It is the opposite of anaphora. It refers to any reference that „points forward‟.
In cataphora, referent appears after the reference in the text (Clark, 1996, p.58).
For example:
When she arrived at the room, Bushra saw that the door was open.
Here, the pronoun „she‟ refers forward to „Bushra‟.
3.4.1.1. b. Exophoric Reference or Exophora
It is a type of reference which deals with referent outside the text. It is
dependent on the context of a situation with which interactants are familiar (Halliday
& Hassan, 1976, p. 33). They (1976, p. 33) summarize the kinds of references in the
following tree diagram:
Reference

(Situational) (Textual)
Exophora Endophora

(to preceding text) (to following text)

Anaphora Cataphora
Halliday and Hasan (1976, p. 37) recognize three kinds of reference: Personal
Reference, Demonstrative reference and Comparative Reference. Each of these is
discussed in the following way:
3.4.1.1. c. Personal Reference
Personal Reference is defined by its function in the speech situation through
the category of person (Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p.37). The category of personal
reference consists of three classes, which include personal pronouns, possessive
determiners, and possessive pronouns. For example:
„If the buyer wants to know the condition of the property, he has to have
another survey carried out on his own behalf‟. (Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p.47)
In the example above, the Personal Reference is „he‟ and „his‟. Personal
Reference means to refer to a person in a text by using a personal pronoun.

44
3.4.1.1. d. Demonstrative Reference
This type of reference is expressed through the demonstratives (this, that) and
adverb (here, there, now). It is basically a form of „verbal pointing‟. The speaker
recognizes the referent by locating it on the scale of proximity. For examples,
1. Leave that there and come here!
2. And after a time those little pigs died.
The Demonstrative References are: „there‟ and „here‟ in example 1 and „those‟ in
example 2.
3.4.1.1. e. Comparative Reference
Comparative reference is a type of indirect reference that is recognized by
means of identity or similarity. It is expressed through adjectives and adverbs. It can
be divided into two types which are „general comparison‟ and „particular comparison‟
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p.37-39). General comparison identifies likeness between
things. The likeness can take the form of identity whereby are likened each other
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p.77). While, Particular comparison highlights
comparability between things in terms of a particular property (Halliday & Hasan,
1976, p. 80).
3.4.1.2. Substitution
Substitution takes place when one element replaces another element
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p.88). They define the term „substitute‟ as “a sort of
counter which is used in place of the repetition of a particular item” (1976, p. 89).
For instance:
“My hard disk crashed. I have to get a new one”.
In this example, “one” is replaced or substituted for “hard disk”. The items
generally used in English for Substitution are One(s), Do, So/not, same etc.
For examples:
 I offered him a seat. He said he didn‟t want one.
 Did Mary take that letter? She might have done.
 Do you need a lift? If so, wait for me; if not, I‟ll see you there.
 She chose the roast duck; I chose the same. (McCarthy, 1991, p.45)
Halliday and Hasan (1976, p.90) define different types of substitution as “a
grammatical relation in the wording”. They recognize three types of substitution:
Nominal, Verbal and Clausal Substitution respectively.

45
3.4.1.2.1. Nominal Substitution
Nominal Substitution is the first type of substitution which is done by the
substitutes: one, ones, same, and so. The nominal substitutes „one‟ and „ones‟
function as head of a nominal group. They can substitute only for an item that is itself
head of a nominal group (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p.91).
e.g.:
“I shoot the hippopotamus
With bullets made of platinum
Because if I use leaden ones
His hide is sure to flatten‟em”.
(Halliday &Hasan 1976, p.91)
In this example, „bullets‟ is head of the nominal group „bullets made of
platinum‟ and „ones‟ is the head of the nominal group „leaden ones‟.
3.4.1.2.2. Verbal Substitution
The second type of substitution is verbal which is indicated by the substitutes:
“do”. This functions as a head of verbal group. It is always placed at the end of the
group and it substitutes the lexical verb (Halliday &Hasan 1976, p.112).
e.g.:
1. „I don‟t know the meaning of half those long words, and, what‟s more, I
don‟t believe you do either! (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p.112)
Here, “do” substitutes for “know the meaning of half those long words”.

2. a: Rasheed says you eat the fish too much.

b: So do you?
In this example, „do‟ substitutes „eat the fish too much‟.
3.4.1.2.3. Clausal Substitution
Clausal Substitution is the third type of substitution which presupposes a
whole clause. The substitutes „so‟ and „not‟ are used in clausal substitution (Halliday
&Hasan 1976, p.130).
e.g.:
a: Is there going to be an earthquake?
b: It says so. (Halliday & Hasan (1976, p.130)

46
 In this example, „so‟ presupposes the entire clause „there going to be an
earthquake‟.
Halliday and Hasan (1976, p.131) introduce three environments in which clausal
substitution takes place. These are following:
a) Reported clause
b) Condition,
c) Modality
a. Reported Clause
The substitutes „so‟ or „not‟ are used in the reported clause. They are always
declarative. For example:
„…if you‟ve seen them so often, of course you know what they‟re like.‟
„I believe so‟, Alice replied thoughtfully‟ (Halliday & Hasan (1976, p.131)
In this example, „so‟ substitutes for „I know what they are like‟.
b. Condition
Conditional clauses are frequently substituted by „so‟ and „not‟, especially
following „if‟ but also in other forms such as „assuming so‟, „suppose not‟.
For example:
„Everyone seems to think he‟s guilty. If so, no doubt he‟ll offer to
resign‟ (Halliday & Hasan (1976, p.134).
Here, in this example, „so‟ follows „if‟ and substitutes for the conditional clause
„he is guilty‟.
c. Modality
The words used as substitutes are „so‟ and „not‟ for clauses which expresses
modality.
„May I give you a slice?‟ she said, taking up the knife and fork, and
looking from one Queen to the other.
„Certainly not,‟ the Red Queen said, very decidedly: „it isn‟t etiquette
to cut anyone you‟ve been introduced to. Remove the joint!‟
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p.135)
In this example, „not‟ substitutes for the clause which is expresses modality.
3.4.1.3. Ellipsis
Ellipsis means having some „missing‟ element or omitting words in order to
avoid repetition or to create an effect. Halliday and Hasan (1976) define ellipsis as

47
“substitution by zero” (p.142). This means that Ellipsis is a type of Substitution. In
Substitution, something is used to replace an item, while in Ellipsis; nothing is used to
replace the item (p.142).It is just omitted. For Example:
1. “Joan brought some carnations, and Catherine some sweet peas”.
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p. 143)
Here, „brought‟ in the second clause is ellipted.
2. a: Have you got the notes?
b: Yes, I have.
3. a: Can you do this work?
b: Yes, I can.
Here, the speaker is able to understand what “I can” refers to.
4. You believe in God. So do it.
Number 4 is the example of both substitution as well as ellipsis. „do‟ in the
second sentence substitutes „believe‟ while „in God‟ of the first sentence is omitted in
the second.
McCarthy recognizes three types of Ellipsis: Nominal, Verbal and Clausal
(1991, pp.43-44).
3.4.1.3.1. Nominal Ellipsis
When a headword/noun phrase is missing in a sentence, it is called Nominal
Ellipsis (McCarthy, 1991, p. 43). e.g.:
Seema liked the green coat; I preferred the blue.
Here, the headword „coat‟ is missing in the nominal phrase.
3.4.1.3.2. Verbal Ellipsis
The verb is omitted from the context, it is verbal ellipsis. For example:
a: Have you been working?
b: Yes, I have.
According to Thomas (as cited in McCarthy, 1991, pp.43-44), there are two
kinds of verbal ellipsis: Echoing verbal ellipsis and contrasting auxiliary verbal
ellipsis.
3.4.1.3.2. a. Echoing Verbal Ellipsis
It is an ellipsis in which an item from the verbal group is repeated.

48
For example:
a: Will anyone be waiting?
b: Jim will, I should think.
3.4.1.3.2. b. Contrasting Auxiliary Verbal Ellipsis
It is an ellipsis in which auxiliary is changed.
E.g.: a: Has she remarried?
b: No, but she will one day, I‟m sure.
3.4.1.3.3. Clausal Ellipsis
It is an ellipsis in which the whole clause is missing. It is called clausal
ellipsis.
E.g.: a: I have not finished my work.
b: Why?
In this example, „Why‟ means „why haven‟t you finished your work?‟

3.4.1.4. Conjunction
Conjunction joins two clauses within a sentence (Clark, 1996, p. 60). Halliday
and Hassan (1976, p.227) say:
“ in describing conjunction as a cohesive device, we are focusing attention not
on the semantic relations as such, as realized throughout the grammar of the language,
but on one particular aspect of them, namely the function they have of relating to each
other linguistic elements that occur in succession but are not related by other,
structural means”.
Halliday and Hassan (1976) propose four different types of conjunction. These
are Additive, Adversative, Causal and Temporal conjunctions. Martin and Rose (cited
in Paltridge, 2006, p.139) use the word “consequential” for causal. While, Salkie
(1995, p.76) also observes the same four types of conjunction but uses different
terminology. He uses the term „connectives‟ in place of conjunction. The four types of
connectives he talks about are: additional connectives, opposition connectives, cause
connectives, and time connectives.
According to Halliday and Hassan (1976), there are four types of conjunction:
3.4.1.4.1. Additive Conjunction
It is a kind of conjunction which gives additional information. Examples of
Additive Conjunctions are: and, in addition, besides and so on.

49
For instance:
She walked into the room and sat on the sofa
Here „and‟ signals the additional information.
3.4.1.4.2. Adversative Conjunction
It is a type of conjunction which shows a connection by indicating the contrary
to what is expected. Adversative Conjunctions are signalled by words such as; but,
however, instead, rather, etc.
e.g.:
1. She is poor but she is honest
2. Last year Aman lived in Aligarh, but this year he lives in Delhi.
Here, the two sentences are connected by “but” which is an adversative
conjunction.
3.4.1.4.3. Causal Conjunction
It signifies result, purpose or reason. It is signalled by words such as: so,
hence, therefore, consequently, thus, as accordingly, etc. Examples:
“… She felt that there was no time to be lost, as she was shrinking rapidly;
So she got to work at once to eat some of the other bit”.
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p. 256)
3.4.1.4.4. Temporal Conjunction
The last type of conjunction is temporal conjunction. It is a relation between
two successive sentences in sequence of time. The simplest form of this type is
expressed by then, next, afterwards, after that, subsequently, finally, first, at last, etc.
For examples:
“All this time the guard was looking at her, first through a telescope, then
through a microscope, and then through an opera-glass. At last he said „You‟re
travelling the wrong way‟, and shut up the window and went away”.
Halliday and Hasan (1976, pp.242-243) classify various subclasses of
conjunctions in the following way:

50
 Classification of Conjunctions
Additive Adversative Causal Temporal

Simple: and, nor, Proper: yet, but, General: so, because Simple: then, next,
however, though, of this, then, therefore, finally, at last, at the same
or, or else
only consequently. time.
Complex: Contrastive: But, Specific: it follows, to Complex: at once, soon,
furthermore in on the other hand, at this end, on this basis. after a time, next time,
addition, besides, by the same time. mean while, next day.
the way
Comparison: Correction: Rather, Conditional: Under Sequential/ Conclusive:
likewise, similarly, on I mean, instead the circumstances, then, next, secondly,
the other hand, by otherwise, in that finally,
contrast. case
Apposition: I mean, Dismissal: in any Respective: in this Here and Now’
in other words, for case, anyhow, at any respect, in this regard, Summarizing: up to now,
instance, thus, that is. rate, however it is. Aside from this. briefly, to sum up, in
short, to resume.

Martin and Rose (cited in Partridge, 2006, p.140) also summarized the
different types of conjunctions in terms of logical relation in the following table.

Type of Conjunctions
Logical Relation Meaning Examples
Addition Addition and, besides, in addition
Alternation or, if not-then, alternatively
Comparison Similarity like, as if, similarly,
Contrast but, whereas, on the other hand
Time Successive then, after, subsequently, before, previously
Simultaneous while , meanwhile, at the same time
Consequence cause so, because, since, therefore
means by, thus ,by this means
purpose so as, in order to , lest, for fear of
condition if, provided that, unless

51
3.4.2. Lexical Cohesion
Lexical Cohesion is a relationship between vocabulary items in the text
(Halliday and Hasan as cited in McCarthy 1991, p. 65). In the words of Paltridge
(2006, p.133), “Lexical cohesion refers to relationships in meaning between lexical
items in a text and, in particular, content words and the relationship between them”.
Halliday and Hassan (1976, pp. 278-280) divide lexical cohesion into two types:
Reiteration and Collocation.
3.4.2.1. Reiteration
Reiteration is a type of lexical cohesion which can be further sub-divided in
the following way:
3.4.2.1. 1. Repetition
If the same word is repeated in a text, it is called repetition. For instance:
“There was a large mushroom growing near her, about the same
height as herself; and, when she had looked under it, it occurred
to her that she might as well look and see what was on the top of
it. She stretched herself up on tiptoe, and peeped over the edge of
the mushroom…” (Halliday & Hassan, 1976, p.278)
In the example above, the word „mushroom‟ is repeated in the two sentences.
3.4.2.1. 2. Synonymy
It is a form of lexical cohesion which is similar in meaning of an item. For
example:
“Accordingly … I took leave, and turned to the ascent of the peak. The
climb is perfectly easy…” (Halliday & Hassan, 1976, p.278)
In this sentence, “climb” refers back to “ascent” of which it is a synonymy.
3.4.2.1. 3. Super ordinate
A super ordinate is a term which acts as an umbrella term that includes within the
meaning of other words. A super ordinate is a kind of lexical cohesion whose
meaning is included within that of another word. It is “any item that dominates the
earlier one in the lexical taxonomy” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p.280).
For example: “bird” is the super ordinate of “canary”
3.4.2.1. 4. General Words
General words carry a connotation of attitude on the part of the speaker
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976, p. 280).

52
3.4.2.2. Collocation
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), Collocation is a connection of
lexical items which co-occur together. It is a group of words that occur in connection
with each other semantically. That is to say that in language, some words always recur
together as a group as per convention. For examples, the adjective „beautiful‟
collocates with the noun „women‟ instead of with „man‟, as do other adjectives, for
example frumpy, bitchy, slender and pretty (Clerk,1996, p.64).
3.5. Coherence
Guy Cook defines coherence as “the overall quality of unity and meaning
perceived in discourse” (2001, p.153). McCarthy writes that “coherence is the feeling
that a text hangs together, that it makes sense and is not just a jumble of sentences”
(1991, p.26). Coherence is perception of meaning or understanding of sense shared by
speakers and listeners. Any set of words or sentences put together without any link or
availability of perceived meaning shared by speakers cannot have coherence.
Coherence results in understanding and reception of knowledge shared by the
interactants. According to Longman Dictionary of language and Applied Linguistics
“It is the relationships which link the meanings of UTTERANCES in a DISCOURSE
or of the sentences in a text. These links may be based on the speakers‟ shared
knowledge”. Cohesion helps in creation of perceived meaning in discourse which is
called coherence.
3.6. Defining Discourse
The word discourse is a subject of discussion among linguists. Matthews
(2007) defines discourse as „any coherent succession of sentences, spoken or written‟
(p.107). Stubbs (1983, p.1) gives the definition of discourse as “language above the
sentence or above the clause”. According to Crystal (1992), “discourse is a continuous
stretch of (especially spoken) LANGUAGE larger than a SENTENCE, often
constituting a coherent unit, such as a sermon, argument, a joke or narrative” (p.96).
Another definition of discourse is quoted from Candlin (1997, iix, cited in Jaworski &
Coupland, 1999, p.2) “Discourse… refers to language in use, as a process which is
socially situated. However… we may go on to discuss the constructive and dynamic
role of either spoken or written discourse in structuring areas of knowledge and the
social and institutional practices which are associated with them. In this sense ,
discourse is a means of talking and writing about and acting upon worlds, a means

53
which both constructs and is constructed by a set of social practices within these
worlds, in so doing both reproduces and constructs afresh particular social-discursive
practices, constrained or encouraged by more macro movements in the overarching
social formation.”
Discourse is a process, an activity which takes place at the cognitive or
conceptual level involving comprehension of the social reality in the minds of the
speakers. It is involved in the construction of reality. Discursive practices bend or are
bent by social or cultural reality. They connect purely linguistic/textual elements with
pragmatics, sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics.
3.7. Defining Discourse Analysis
Brown and Yule suggest that “the analysis of discourse is, necessarily the
analysis of language in use” (1983, p.1). Fasold (1990, p.65) observes that “the study
of discourse is the study of any aspect of language use” (cited in Jaworski &
Coupland, 2006, p.1). In both these definitions, discourse has been referred to as
„language in use‟ and analysis of language in use is discourse analysis. Another
definition of discourse analysis is taken from Allen & Corder 1974, “discourse
analysis is taken to be the investigation into the formal devices used to connect
sentences together” (p.200). Discourse analysis is about investigating use of language
in social context
As commonly defined, discourses analysis is the study of language patterns
above the sentence. However, Widdowson asserts that “if discourse analysis is
defined as the study of language patterns above the sentence, this would seem to
imply that discourse is sentence write large: quantitatively different but qualitatively
the same phenomenon. It would follow, too, of course, that you cannot have discourse
below the sentence” (2004, p.3). Stubbs explains as “The term discourse analysis is
very ambiguous. I will use it in this book to refer mainly to the linguistic analysis of
naturally occurring connected speech or written discourse. Roughly speaking, it refers
to attempts to study the organization of language above the sentence or above the
clause, and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational exchanges
or written texts. It follows that discourse analysis is also concerned with language use
in social contexts, and in particular with interaction or dialogue between speakers”
(1983, p.1). From this explanation by Stubbs, we can conclude that:
(a) It studies naturally-occurring connected speech or written discourse.

54
 (b) It studies language above the sentence or above the clause.
(c) It is concerned with language use in social context.
3.8. Historical view of Discourse Analysis
The term „discourse analysis‟ was first used as the title of a paper by Zellig
Harris which was published in 1952. Harris investigates distribution of linguistic
components to make larger texts and the connections between the text and its social
situation. Discourse analysis came into existence as a result of research in various
fields such as linguistics, semiotics, psychology, anthropology, and sociology.
Discourse analysts study language use in all different types of written texts, spoken
data from conversation to highly institutionalized forms of talk. The emergence of
semiotics and the French structuralist approach were also significant for the study of
narrative. During the 1960s, Dell Hymes combined sociological view with the study
of speech. Some philosophers of linguistics for instance, Austin (1962), Searle (1969)
and Grice (1975) also influenced the development of the study of language
(McCarthy, 1991, p. 5).
Discourse analysis in Britain was much influenced by M. A. K. Halliday‟s
functional approach to language which, successively has joined with the Prague
School of linguists. The framework Halliday uses draws attention to the social
functions of language and the thematic and informational structure of speech and
writing. In Britain, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) developed a model for the
description of teacher- pupil talk which was based on a sequence of discourse
elements. The work of British linguists has mainly followed structural-linguistic
criteria which are based on the isolation of units, and sets of rules defining well-
formed strings of discourse (McCarthy, 1991, p. 6).
Discourse analysis in America has been of ethnomethodological tradition. It is
primarily dominated by works which emphasise the research method of close
observation of the language different groups of people use when they communicate
with each other in natural situations. It observes speech event types; for example:
storytelling, greeting rituals and verbal duels in different cultural and social situations.
The work of Goffman (1976; 1979), and Sacks Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) is very
important in the study of conversational norms, turn-taking, and other features of
spoken interaction. Labov made relevant observation about oral story telling who
contributed to a long history in narrative discourse (McCarthy, 1991, p.6).

55
 The work of text grammarians is also important and useful for the
development of discourse analysis. They are mainly working with the written
language. Most linguists for instance Van Dijk (1972), De Beaugrande (1980),
Halliday and Hasan (1976) influenced the development of the study of discourse
analysis (McCarthy, 1991, p.6).
3.8. The Scope of Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis is a method of describing and understanding how language
can be used at different levels (McCarthy, 1991, p.2). The different levels consist of
the components of grammar and lexis for the analysis of language. These two
components are the basic material for discourse analysis. The study of discourse is not
possible in any given text without the resources of grammar and lexis (McCarthy,
1991, p.34).
In their book, Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers (1991, p.74),
McCarthy has clearly differentiated between grammar and lexis. According to him,
grammar is concerned with the closed systems which bring grammatical meaning, for
example, this, that, these, and those etc. On the other hand, lexis deals with open
systems which include the major word classes such as noun, verb, adjective, and
adverb.
Discourse analysis not only deals with the description and analysis of spoken
interaction but also with written interaction. People may encounter hundreds of
written and printed words daily, for example in newspapers, recipes, stories, letters,
comics, notices, instructions etc. They expect them to be coherent, meaningful
communications in which the words and sentences are related to one another. The
word and sentences correspond to conventional formulae, just the way they do in
speech (McCarthy, 1991, p.12).
3.9. Difference between Text and Discourse
Both the terms text and discourse are used in different ways by different
linguists and researchers. Some scholars use both words interchangeably, but some
make a clear distinction between them. To Chafe and Raphael Salkie, there is not
much of difference between the two terms: text and discourse.
Crystal discuses text and discourse in a manner which demonstrates that to
him also the difference between the terms is not so significant. He writes:

56
 Discourses analysis focuses on the structure of naturally
occurring spoken language, as found in such „discourses
„as conversations, interviews, commentaries, and
speeches. Text analysis focuses on the structure of written
language, as found in such „texts as essays, notices, road
signs, and chapters. But this distinction is not clear-cut,
and there have been many other uses of these labels. In
particular, both „discourse‟ and „text‟ can be used in a
much broader sense to include all language units with a
definable communicative function, whether spoken or
written. Some scholars talk about „spoken or written
discourse‟; others about „spoken or written text‟ ” (1987,
p.116).
Geoffrey Leech and Michael Short try to define the term in the following
manner:
Discourse is linguistic communication seen as a
transaction between speaker and hearer, as an
interpersonal activity whose form is determined by its
social purpose. Text is linguistic communication (either
spoken or written) seen simply as a message coded in its
auditory or visual medium (as cited in Mills, 1997, p.13).
However, Brown and Yule made a clear distinction between text and discourse
in terms of product and process. According to them, “the discourse analyst treats his
data as the record (text) of a dynamic process in which language was used as an
instrument of communication in a context by a speaker/writer to express meanings
and achieve intentions (discourse)” (1983, p.26). It is clear by looking at the
difference highlighted by Brown and Yule that text is a product in which there are
sentences and there are elements beyond the sentence level waiting to be read,
comprehended and explored. Whereas, discourse is the activation of the possibility of
the act of reading, comprehension and explanation of what is present in the product
called text. Therefore, discourse is called process, since it is the name of activation or
happening in the form of exchange and understanding.

57
References
1. Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London:
Longman.
2. Brown, G., and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge. Cambridge
University Press.
3. Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen (2006). Collaborating towards Coherence. John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
4. McCarthy, (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers.Cambridge
University Press.
5. Clark, U., (1996). An Introduction to Stylistics. Stanley Thornes Ltd.
6. Cook, G. (2001). The discourse of advertising. London, UK: Routledge.
7. Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher
Ltd.
8. Crystal, D. (1992). A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics.Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
9. Jaworski, A. & Coupland, N. (1999). The Discourse Reader (2nd). London
and New York: Routledge.

10. Widdoson, G.H., (2004). Text, context, pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse
analysis. Blackwell publishing.
11. Bloomfield, L., (1933). Language. New York Henery Holt And Company.
12. Crystal, D., (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
13. Mills, S., (1997). Discourse. London and New York: Routledge
14. Paltridge, B., (2008). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. Continuum.
15. Allen, J.P.B & Corder, S.Pit. (1974). Papers in Applied Linguistics. (Volume
2). Oxford: University Press.
16. Richards, J., Platt, J., and Platt, H. (1992). Longman Dictionary of Language
Teaching and Applied Linguistics (2nd). England: Longman Group U.K.
Limited.

58