University of 8 mai 1945 -Guelma Discourse analysis

Department of Letters and English Language Serhani. M.

1st year, Master

Introduction to Discourse Analysis

CONTENT

1. Introduction to Discourse Analysis

1.1 Historical background
- Who does discourse analysis?
- Defining discourse analysis?
- What is discourse analysis?
1.2. Scope of discourse analysis
1.3. Text and discourse
1.4. Spoken and written text

1.1. Historical background

Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the
contexts in which it is used. It grew out of work in different disciplines in the 1960s and early
1970s, including linguistics, semiotics (often equivalent to Saussure’s Semiology, the role of
signs in social life. A general science, in which linguistics is part, traffic signs, gestures,
Christmas presents, architectural features or anything else that in the broad sense has a meaning,
including words, morphemes, etc.), psychology, anthropology (the study of people and
societies throughout the world, their evolutionary history, how they behave, adapt to different
environments, communicate and socialise with one another) and sociology.

At a time when linguistics was largely concerned with the analysis of single sentences,
Zellig Harris published a paper with the title 'Discourse analysis' (Harris 1952).
Harris was interested in the distribution of linguistic elements-in extended texts, and the links
between the text and its social situation, though his paper is a far cry from the discourse analysis
we are used to nowadays.
Harris suggested that a distributional analysis can be successfully applied to a whole text
to discover structuring above the rank of sentence. An example:
The trees turn here about the middle of autumn.
The trees turn here about the end of October.
1
The first frost comes after the middle of autumn.
We start heating after the end of October.
The aim of the analysis is to isolate units of text which are distributionally equivalent though
not necessarily similar in meaning; that is equivalences which have validity for that text alone.
From the first two sentences above one establishes the equivalence of “the middle of autumn”
and “the end of October”, not because they are similar in meaning but because they share an
identical environment, “the trees turn here”. The next step is to carry over the equivalences
derived from the first two sentences into the next two and this allows us to equate “the first frost
comes” with “we start heating” and of course both with “the trees turn here” which provided
the original context.

In the 1960s, Dell Hymes provided a sociological perspective with the study of speech
in its social setting.

The linguistic philosophers such as Austin (1962), Searle (1969) and Grice (1975)
were also influential in the study of language as social action, reflected in speech-act theory
and the formulation of conversational maxims.
(Grice suggested that conversation is based on a shared principle of cooperation, i.e. how
effective is the communication in a conversation depending on how interlocutors act
cooperatively. This principle was fleshed out in four maxims. Grice’s Maxims:
The maxim of quantity, where one tries to be as informative as one possibly can, and gives
as much information as is needed, and no more.
The maxim of quality, where one tries to be truthful, and does not give information that is
false or that is not supported by evidence.
The maxim of relation, where one tries to be relevant, and says things that are pertinent to
the discussion.
The maxim of manner, when one tries to be as clear, as brief, and as orderly as one can in
what one says, and where one avoids obscurity and ambiguity).
Alongside, the emergence of pragmatics (which is the study of meaning in context)
British discourse analysis was greatly influenced by M. A. K. Halliday's functional
approach to language (e.g. Halliday 1973). Halliday's framework emphasises the social
functions of language and the thematic and informational structure of speech and writing.
While many of the linguistic theories in the world today are concerned with language as a
mental process, SFL is more closely aligned with Sociology: it explores how language is used
in social contexts to achieve particular goals.

Also important in Britain were Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) at the University of
Birmingham, who developed a model for the description of teacher-pupil talk, based on a
hierarchy of discourse units. Other similar work has dealt with doctor-patient interaction,
service encounters, interviews, debates and business negotiations, as well as monologues.

2
 American discourse analysis has been dominated by work within the
ethnomethodological tradition, which emphasises the research method of close observation
of groups of people communicating in natural setting. It examines types of speech event
such as storytelling, greeting rituals and verbal duels in different cultural and social
settings (e.g. Gumperz and Hymes 1972). What is often called conversation analysis within
the American tradition can also be included under the general heading of discourse analysis.
Discourse analysis has grown into a wide-ranging and heterogeneous discipline which
finds its unity in the description of language above the sentence and an interest in the
contexts and cultural influences which affect language in use.

- Who Does Discourse Analysis?

Discourse analysts do what people in their everyday experience of language do

instinctively and largely unconsciously: notice patterning of language in use and the
circumstances (participants, situations, purposes, outcomes) with which these are typically
associated. The discourse analyst’s particular contribution to this activity is to do the noticing
consciously, deliberately, systematically, and, as far as possible, objectively, and to produce
accounts (descriptions, interpretations, explanations) of what their investigations have revealed.
Since the study of language in use, as a goal of education, a means of education, and an
instrument of social control and social change, is the principal concern of applied
linguistics, indeed its raison d’être, it is easy to see why discourse analysis has such a vital
part to play in the work that applied linguistics does, and why so much of the work that
has been done over the last few decades on developing the theory and practice of discourse
analysis been done by applied linguists (Widdowson, Candlin, Swales, for example) or by
linguists (notably Halliday and his followers) for whom the integration of theory and
practice is a defining feature of the kind of linguistics that they do.
Much of the work, but not by any means all. A great deal of discourse analysis is done by
linguists who would not call themselves applied and much by scholars in other disciplines –
sociology, psychology, psychotherapy, for example – who would not call themselves linguists.
Discourse analysis is part of applied linguistics but does not belong exclusively to it; it is a
multidisciplinary field, and hugely diverse in the range of its interests.

3
 - Defining Discourse

Discourse analysis may, broadly speaking, be defined as the study of language viewed
communicatively and/or of communication viewed linguistically. Any more detailed spelling
out of such a definition typically involves reference to concepts of language in use, language
above or beyond the sentence, language as meaning in interaction, and language in
situational and cultural context.
Depending on their particular convictions and affiliations – functionalism, structuralism, social
interactionism, etc. – linguists will emphasize one, or some, rather than others.
To illustrate this point, let us imagine four linguists working with the following sample:

A: You THREW it so you GET it

B: I’ll call my MUM
Linguist 1 sees a text– the verbal record of a speech event, something visible and
palpable, consisting of various bits of linguistic meaning (words, clauses, prosodic features,
etc.). This linguist is mainly interested in the way the parts of the text relate to each other to
constitute a unit of meaning.
Linguist 2 sees beyond the text to the event of which it is the verbal record. Linguist 2 is
most likely the person who collected the data; and who made the following note describing
some features of the situation in which the exchange took place: [sunny Sunday afternoon,
Edinburgh Botanic Garden, two girls, both aged 7 or 8, on a path; one of them has kicked the
ball they are playing with into the bushes]
This linguist is mainly interested in the relationships between the various factors in the event:
the participants, their cultural backgrounds, their relationship to each other, the setting, what is
going on, the various linguistic choices made, etc.
Linguist 3 sees the text and the event but then beyond both to the performance being
enacted, the drama being played out between the two girls: what has happened, who is
responsible, how the girls evaluate these facts (relate them to some existing framework of
beliefs and attitudes about how the world– their world – works), how they respond to them,
what each is trying to achieve, their strategies for attempting to achieve these objectives, etc.
This linguist is mainly interested in the dynamics of the process that makes the event happen.
Linguist 4 sees the text, the event, and the drama; but beyond these, the framework of
knowledge and power which, if properly understood, will explain how it is possible for the two
children, individually and jointly, to enact and interpret their drama in the way they do.

Discourse does not lend itself to a single definition. Here instead is a set of definitions in the
style of a dictionary entry for “discourse”:
1- the linguistic, cognitive and social processes whereby meanings are expressed and
intentions interpreted in human interaction (linguist 3);

4
 2. the historically and culturally embedded sets of conventions which constitute and
regulate such processes (linguist 4);
2- a particular event in which such processes are instantiated (linguist 2);
3- the product of such an event, especially in the form of visible text, whether
originally spoken and subsequently transcribed or originally written (linguist 1).

- What Is Discourse Analysis?

Paltridge (2006) summarises discourse analysis as follows:

Discourse analysis is an approach to the analysis of language that looks at patterns of
language across texts as well as the social and cultural contexts in which the texts occur.
Discourse analysis focuses on knowledge about language beyond the word, clause, phrase, and
sentence that is needed for successful communication. It looks at patterns of language across
texts and considers the relationship between language and the social and cultural contexts in
which it is used. It examines how the use of language is influenced by relationships between
participants and relations. Discourse analysis examines both and spoken texts.

1.2. The scope of discourse analysis

Discourse analysis is not only concerned with the description and analysis of spoken interaction.
In addition to all our verbal encounters we daily consume hundreds of written and printed
words: newspaper articles, letters, stories, recipes, instructions, notices, comics, billboards,
leaflets pushed through the door, and so on. We usually expect them to be coherent, meaningful
communications in which the words and/or sentences are linked to one another in a fashion that
corresponds to conventional formulae, just as we do with speech; therefore, discourse analysts
are equally interested in the organisation of written interaction.

1.3. Text and discourse

KEEP OFF THE GRASS

(a public notice, sign)
When people come across public notice, they don’t see it as a sample of language and analyse
it into its formal constituents. They take note of it only to the extent that they recognise its
purpose, as something not to analyse but to act upon. In other words, they treat it as a text.

5
 Definition

A text can be defined as an actual use of language, as a distinct from a sentence which is an
abstract unit of linguistic analysis. We identify a piece of language as a text as soon as we
recognise that it has been produced for communicative purpose.
Consider again the public notice “KEEP THE GRASS OFF”. We may know well enough what
the word “grass” denotes. But what the word denotes is not the same as knowing what it is
meant to refer to when it occurs here in the phrase the grass. The definite article the signals
that what is being referred to is a matter of shared knowledge. The grass. But which grass?
Obviously, one might say, the grass in the vicinity of the notice. So, what we do is to establish
reference by relating the text to the context in which it is located. But then the question
arises to how far the vicinity is meant to extend. Does the grass refer just to the particular patch
where the notice is placed, or to other patches near as well, or to the whole park? The range of
reference is not specified in the language itself. We make assumptions about what it is on the
basis of what we know about public notices of this kind and how they are conventionally meant
to be understood.
In other words, we relate the text not only to the actual situational context in which we find
it, but to the abstract cultural context of what we know to be conventional. And by relating
text to context we infer not only what the notice refers to, but also what its purpose is.

Text and discourse

“KEEP OFF THE GRASS” is a simple text. But not all texts are so simple in form and
straightforward in function.
Also, as we have seen that not all texts extend beyond the sentence, but great of them do:
travel guides, newspaper articles; interviews, speeches, reports, poems, and so on.
Some texts have an obvious utility function but others are meant to serve a range of
different social purposes: give information, express a point of view, shape opinion, provide
entertainment, and so on. These functions are frequently combined in complex ways: a travel
guide may provide information but it is also designed to promote the attractions it describes;
and what is presented as a factual account in a newspaper article, will usually reflect and
promote a particular point of view.
People produce texts to get a message across, to express and beliefs, to explain something, to
get other people do certain things, or to think a certain way, and so on. We can refer to this
complex of communicative purposes as the discourse that underlies the text and motivates its
production in the first place.

6
 1.4. Spoken text and written text

Spoken and written language

- Manner of production

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” effects (as well facial expression, postural ad gestural systems).
Armed with these, he can always override the effect of the words he speaks.

Example

The speaker who says “I’d really like to”, leaning forward, smiling, with a “warm breathy”
voice quality, is much more likely to be interpreted as meaning what he says than another
speaker uttering the same words, leaning away, brow puckered, with a “sneering, nasal” voice
quality. These paralinguistic cues are denied to the writer.

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. The speaker has no permanent record of what
he has said earlier.

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 pressure to keep on talking during the period allotted to
him, the writer is characteristically under no such pressure. Whereas the speaker knows
that any words which pass his lips will be heard by his interlocutor and, if they are not what he
intends, he will have to undertake active, public “repair”, the writer can cross out and
rewrite in the privacy of his study.

7
There are, of course, advantages for the speaker. The speaker can observe his interlocutor
and, if he wishes to, modify what he is saying to make it more accessible and acceptable
to his hearer. The writer has no access to immediate feedback and simply has to imagine
the reader’s reaction.

- The representation of discourse: texts

a- Written texts

The notion of “text” as a printed record is familiar in the study of literature. A “text” may be
differently presented in different editions, with different type-face, on different sizes of paper,
in one or two columns, and we still assume, from one edition to the next, that the different
presentations all present the same “text”. It is important to consider what is that is “the
same”. The words should be the same words, presented in the same order.

‘Mr. Bennet, how can you abuse your own children in such a way? You take delight
in vexing me. You have no compassion on my poor nerves.’

‘you mistake me, my dear. I have a high respect for your nerves. They are my
old friends. I have heard you mention them with consideration these twenty years
at least.’

It is clear that more than simply reproducing the words in their correct order is required. It is
necessary to replicate punctuation conventions, as well as the lineation which indicates
the change of speaker.

We have titles, chapters, headings, sub-divisions, sub-headings all indicate to the reader
how the author intends his argument to be chunked.

The detail of lineation matters more in the reproduction of poetry (than in expository or
descriptive prose).

b- Spoken texts

The notion of “text” as the verbal record of a communicative act become more problematic
when we consider what is meant by spoken “text”. The simplest view to assume is that a tape-
recording of a communicative act will preserve the “text”. The tape-recording may also
preserve a good deal that may be extraneous to the text -coughing, chairs creaking, buses going
past. These events do not constitute part of the text (though they may form part of the relevant
context)
8
In general, the discourse analyst works with a tape-recording of an event, from which he
then makes a written transcription, annotated according to his interests on a particular
occasion. He has to determine what form he will transcribe it in. Unless analyst produces a
fine-grained phonetic transcription, details of accent and pronunciation are lost. In general,
analysts represent speech using normal orthographic conventions.

Examples

The analyst may hear an utterance which might be transcribed phonemically as /greɪpbrɪtɪn/. Is
he to render this orthographically as grape britain? Hardly. He will interpret what he hears and
normalise to the conventional orthographic Great Britain inserting conventional word
boundaries in the orthographic version which do not exist in the acoustic signal.

If he hears a form /gənə/, is he to render this in the orthography as gonna (which for some
readers may have a peculiarly American association) or going to?

The problem is a very real one, because most speakers constantly simplifying words
phonetically in the stream of speech. If the analyst normalises to the conventional written form,
the words take on a formality and specificity which misrepresent the spoken form.

Problems with representing the segmental record of the words spoken pale into the
insignificance compared with the problems of representing the suprasegmental record (details
of intonation and rhythm). There are no standard conventions for representing the paralinguistic
features of the utterance which are summarised as “voice quality”.

The effect of an utterance being said kindly and sympathetically is clearly very different from
the effect if it is said brutally and harshly.

Similarly, it is usually possible to determine from a speaker’s voice his or her sex, approximate
age and educational status, as well as some aspects of state of health and personality. In general,
temporal and rhythmic features are ignored in transcriptions.

It seems reasonable to suggest that these variables together with pauses and intonation, perform
the functions in speech that punctuation, capitalization, italicisation, paragraphing etc. perform
in written language, i.e., to present their transcriptions of the spoken text using conventions
of the written language.

1. Ci: like this?

2. T: Okay, yeah, all right, now...
3. Ri: Now what are we going to do?

9
In 1 and 3 we have to assume that the “?” indicates that the utterance functions as a question -
whether it is formally marked by rising intonation in the case of 1, we are not told. Similarly,
the status of commas in 2 are to indicate pauses, rhythmic or intonational cues.
The analyst may italicise a word to indicate the speaker’s high pitch and increased loudness,
for instance.

References

- Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse Analysis. An Introduction. Continuum.

- Trappes-Lomax, H. (2004). Discourse Analysis. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Rds.), The
handbook of Applied Linguistics. Eds. Alan Davies and Catherine Elder. Blackwell
Publishing.
- Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Discourse Analysis. Oxford University Press.

10