Table of contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 2

1.1. Aim ................................................................................................................... 2

1.2. Objectives ......................................................................................................... 2

2. Discourse Analysis ................................................................................................... 3

2.1. Perspectives and Scope of Discourse Analysis ................................................ 4

2.2. Form and Function............................................................................................ 6

2.2.1. Discussion ..................................................................................................... 7

2.3. Discourse Analysis and Social Context ............................................................ 8

2.4. Discourse Analysis and Grammar .................................................................... 9

2.5. Discourse analysis and Vocabulary ................................................................ 10

2.6. Discourse Analysis and Phonology ................................................................ 11

3. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 13

4. Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 14
 2

1. Introduction

Discourse analysis (DA) is a broad field of study that draws some of its theories and
methods of analysis from disciplines such as linguistics, sociology, philosophy and
psychology. More importantly, discourse analysis has provided models and methods of
engaging issues that emanate from disciplines such as education, cultural studies,
communication and so on. The vast nature of discourse analysis makes it impossible for
us to discuss all that the reader needs to know about it in an introductory work of this
nature. However, the chief aim of this chapter is to introduce the reader to some of the
basic terms and concepts involved in discourse analysis. The reader is also introduced to
some of the approaches to linguistic study of discourse.

Going further, in linguistics, discourse is natural spoken or written language in context,

especially when complete texts are being considered. Discourse analysis is a research
method for studying written or spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims
to understand how language is used in real life situations. Discourse analysis, also called
discourse studies, was developed during the 1970s as an academic field. Discourse
analysis is a common qualitative research method in many humanities and social science
disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology and cultural
studies.

1.1.Aim

To discuss the scope of discourse analysis.

1.2.Objectives

• To identify various definitions and approaches to discourse analysis;

• To discuss the purposes that discourse analysis can serve;
• To identify and explain the form and functions of discourse.
 3

2. Discourse Analysis

The term ‘discourse analysis’ was first used by the sentence linguist, Zellig Harris in his
1952 article entitled ‘Discourse Analysis’. According to him, discourse analysis is a
method for the analysis of connected speech or writing, for continuing descriptive
linguistics beyond the limit of a simple sentence at a time (Harris 1952). Meanwhile,
scholars have attested to the difficulty in coming up with a comprehensive and acceptable
definition for discourse analysis. However, a way to simplify the attempt to define
discourse analysis is to say that discourse analysis is ‘the analysis of discourse’. The next
question, therefore, would be ‘what is discourse?’

Discourse can simply be seen as language in use (Brown & Yule 1983; Cook 1989). It
therefore follows that discourse analysis is the analysis of language in use. By ‘language
in use’, we mean the set of norms, preferences and expectations which relate language to
context. Discourse analysis can also be seen as the organization of language above the
sentence level. The term ‘text’ is, sometimes, used in place of ‘discourse’. The concern
of discourse analysis is not restricted to the study of formal properties of language; it also
takes into consideration what language is used for in social and cultural contexts.
Discourse analysis, therefore, studies the relationship between language (written, spoken
conversation, institutionalized forms of talk) and the contexts in which it is used. What
matters is that the text is felt to be coherent. Guy Cook (1989:6-7) describes discourse as
language in use or language used to communicate something felt to be coherent which
may, or may not correspond to a correct sentence or series of correct sentences. Discourse
analysis, therefore, according to him, is the search for what gives discourse coherence.
He posits that discourse does not have to be grammatically correct, can be anything from
a grunt or simple expletive, through short conversations and scribbled notes, a novel or a
lengthy legal case. What matters is not its conformity to rules, but the fact that it
communicates and is recognized by its receivers as coherent. Similarly, Stubbs (1983:1)
perceives discourse analysis as ‘a conglomeration of attempts to study the organization
of language and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational
exchanges or written text.’ Again, we affirm that what matters in the study of discourse,
whether as language in use or as language beyond the clause, is that language is organized
in a coherent manner such that it communicates something to its receivers.
 4

Discourse analysis evolved from works in different disciplines in the 1960s and early
1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, anthropology, psychology and sociology. Some
of the scholars and the works that either gave birth to, or helped in the development of
discourse analysis include the following: J.L. Austin whose How to Do Things with
Words (1962) introduced the popular social theory, speech-act theory. Dell Hymes (1964)
provided a sociological perspective with the study of speech. John Searle (1969)
developed and improved on the work of Austin. The linguistic philosopher, M.A.K.
Halliday greatly influenced the linguistic properties of discourses (e.g. Halliday 1961),
and in the 1970s he provided sufficient framework for the consideration of the functional
approach to language. H.P. Grice (1975) and Halliday (1978) were also influential in the
study of language as social action reflected in the formulation of conversational maxims
and the emergence of social semiotics. The work of Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) also
developed a model for the description of teacher-pupil talk. The study grew to be a major
approach to discourse. Some work on conversation analysis also aided the development
of discourse analysis. Some of such works from the ethnomethodological tradition
include the work of Gumperz and Hymes 1972. Some other works influential in the study
of conversational norms, turn-taking, and other aspects of spoken interaction include
Goffman (1976, 1979), and Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974). The brief review
above shows that the approach to discourse is anything but uniform, so below is an
attempt to provide a more systematic insight into some of the approaches to discourse.

2.1.Perspectives and Scope of Discourse Analysis

DISCOURSE / ANALYSIS

Connected speech Study

Sentences in combination

Written. Spoken

Sentences utterances

a. What do discourse analysts do?

It can be said that when analyzing language from the perspective of a discourse analyst
we consider four main assumptions;
 5

• Language is ambiguous in a way that one word or sentence may have different
meanings and interpretations.
• Language meaning is always in either “where, when or what”, i.e., what language
means is always a matter of where and when it is used and what it is used to do.
• The way we use language is inseparable from who we are and the different social
groups to which we belong.
• Language is never used all by itself, which means that speakers/writers and
hearers/readers always combine language with other aspects such as tone of voice,
facial expressions, gestures, fonts, layouts, graphs, etc.

In other words, every one of us is doing discourse analysis unintentionally in daily life
when trying to figure out what people mean by what they say and when trying to explain
or express multiple and complicated meaning to others. Discourse analysis can help us to
understand how societies in which we live are put together and how they are maintained
through our day to day activities of speaking/writing. Additionally, it may help us
understand why people in different groups and societies interact with one another the way
they do and how they exert power and influence over one another.

Discourse analysis is the study of naturally occurring data above the sentence level and
beyond language.it is the study of language in context/use.

Discourse analysis deals with how real people use real language as opposed to studying
artificial created sentences. It is interested in how texts are structured and how they follow
regular patterns in a wide range of different situations.

Each piece of writing/speaking has a pattern; discourse analysis tries to identify this
pattern. DA identifies the structure of speech and writing according to the context and
peoples’ needs.

The principle aim of discourse analysis is to examine how any language produced by man
(participants) whether spoken or written (the channel of communication) is used in
communication for a given purpose (intention) in a given context (setting). (Brown
&Yule, 1983).
 6

2.2.Form and Function

Discourse analysis is an umbrella of all those studies within Applied linguistics which
focus on units/stretches of language beyond the sentence level. 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 those
forms are designed to serve in human affairs. While some linguists may concentrate on
determining the formal properties of a language, the discourse analyst is committed to an
investigation of what that language is used for. While the formal approach has a long
tradition, manifested in innumerable volumes of grammar, the functional approach is less
well documented. Attempts to provide even a general set of labels for the principal
functions of language have resulted in vague, and often confusing, terminology. We will
adopt only two terms to describe the major functions of language and emphasize that this
division is an analytic convenience. It would be unlikely that, on any occasion, a natural
language utterance would be used to fulfill only one function, to the total exclusion of the
other. That function which language serves in the expression of ‘content’ we will describe
as transactional, and that function involved in expressing social relations and personal
attitudes we will describe as interactional. Our distinction, ‘transactional / interactional’,
stands in general correspondence to the functional dichotomies – ‘representative /
expressive’, found in Bühler (1934), ‘referential / emotive’ (Jakobson, 1960), ‘ideational
/ interpersonal’ (Halliday, 1970b) and ‘descriptive / social-expressive’ (Lyons, 1977).

a) Transactional function

(Expression of Content)

• Use language to convey factual or propositional information.

• What primarily the speaker has in mind in to transmit information/knowledge.
• The language used is message oriented.
• Linguists, philosophers of language, and psycholinguists are the most concerned
scholars with this function.

Examples:
• A policeman gives directions to a traveller.
• A doctor tells a nurse how to administer medicines to a patient.
 7

• A scientist describes an experiment.

b) Interactional function

(Expressing social relations and personal attitudes)

• Use language to establish and maintain social relationships.

• What primarily the speaker has in mind is to open a conversation/ to be friendly/
to end a conversation.
• Sociologists, sociolinguists, and anthropologists are the most concerned scholars
with this function.

Examples:
- Two strangers are standing at the bus station when it is snowing

A: My goodness, it is so cold today.

The topic of weather is the most quoted example of interactional function in British
English (and many other languages)

2.2.1. Discussion

Discourse analysis is not concerned only with the grammatical form of an utterance; it is
rather concerned with how participants interpret each other’s grammar appropriately and
how the dialogue between participants is coherent.

As far as the above examples are concerned, in the examples of the policeman, the doctor
and the scientist it is clear that the speaker’s main intention is to give/transmit information
to the hearer, which means that a transactional function is performed here. Yet, in the
example of the bus station the speaker’s main intention was not to ask for information
nor to give information; it was rather to be friendly and open a conversation by breaking
the ice and get involved in a weather conversation.

At the grammatical level and considering the form of examples above, it can be said that
the provided examples are being presented either in a form of a statement, suggestion,
affirmation, declaration, etc. however, when it comes to consider the same examples
 8

beyond the grammatical level, it can be said that the same examples may have different
functions.

2.3.Discourse Analysis and Social Context

Discourse analysis takes into account how the formal and situational features of language
confer cohesion and coherence on text. The two main approaches to language identified
by Cook (1989: 12) are sentence linguistics and discourse analysis. The former is mainly
concerned with the study of the formal linguistic properties of language, especially the
well-formedness of a sentence. This approach to language believes that contextual
features, that is, the knowledge of the world outside language, which enable us to interpret
and make meaning in our communication activities, should be excluded in the analysis of
language. To them, the analysis of language should be based on the system of rules that
govern such language, and not on any external circumstances. Sentence linguists,
therefore, restrict their inquiries to what happens within the sentence. Sentence linguists
perceive discourse as a particular unit of language above the sentence or above the clause.
Schiffrin (1994:20) regards this as a formalist paradigm or view of discourse.

The other perspective to discourse which recognizes the crucial place of context of
situation and context of culture in the analysis of language has been described as the
functionalist paradigm by Schiffrin (1994:20). The functionalists describe discourse as
language use. Discourse in the functionalist perspective, according to Schiffrin, is
‘viewed as a system (socially and culturally organized way of speaking) through which
particular functions are realized’. The functional definitions of discourse assume an
interrelationship between language and context. This approach explores the
interconnectedness between language, culture and social context. The functionalists
believe that, as Barbara Johnstone (2002:50) puts it ‘As people construct discourse, they
draw on the resources provided by culture [...] Each instance of discourse is another
instance of the laying out of a grammatical pattern or expression of a belief, so each
instance of discourse reinforces the patterns of language and the beliefs associated with
the culture. Furthermore, people do things in discourse in new ways, which suggests new
patterns, new ways of thinking about the world.’ Discourse analysis therefore takes into
account non-linguistic issues like the speaker’s race, sex, age, class,
occupation/profession, nationality, religion, location and so in the analysis of data. Those
who approach discourse from the functional perspective believe that the formal properties
 9

of language alone are not sufficient for a comprehensive understanding of discourse or

text. This view of language or discourse owes much to the inspirational work J.R. Firth
and other neo- Firthians like M.A.K. Halliday, Ruqaiya Hasan, John Spenser and Michael
Gregory.

2.4.Discourse Analysis and Grammar

We mentioned above that the notion of ‘coherence’ is important in the study of discourse.
We also noted that discourse does not have to be composed of well-formed sentences or
conform to grammatical rules. Cook (1989:14) however notes that both formal and
contextual links enable us to account for discourse. They enable us to see or have a feeling
of how a particular stretch of language (whether written or spoken) hangs together or has
unity. The contextual links are features outside the language such as the situation, the
people involved, what they know and what they are doing. These features enable us to
construct stretches of language as discourse; as having meaning and a unity for us.
However, there is a kind of formal link that connects one sentence with another in
discourse to create unity and meaning for the reader/hearer. The features of formal links
refer to facts inside the language unlike those of contextual links that refer to facts outside
the language. Cook observes that stretches of language treated only formally are referred
to as text. While mainstream linguistics have traditionally concentrated on formal features
which operate within sentences, discourse analysis goes beyond that by looking at the
formal features which operate across sentences. The formal links between sentences and
clauses are known as cohesive devices. As noted earlier, the works of linguistic scholars
such as M. A. K. Halliday (see Halliday and Hasan, 1976) have had a lot of influence on
the grammar or formal properties in discourse. By cohesion, we mean a linguistic unit by
which a text functions as a single unit. It refers to the relations of meaning that exist within
the text. In cohesion, the interpretation in discourse is dependent on another. In this
situation, the one presupposes the other and cannot be fully understood without recourse
to it. Cohesion therefore refers to the semantic relation that exists within the text. It exists
where the interpretation of some element of a discourse is dependent on that of another.
That is, the meaning of a given presupposition cannot be effectively interpreted without
recourse or reference to another. Halliday and Matthiessen (2004:536) contend that the
“cohesive resources make it possible to link items of any size, whether below or above
the clause, and to link items at any distance, whether structurally related or not.”
 10

Therefore, in this section, we shall consider the grammatical terminologies which relate
to the discussion at hand. Since the construction of natural and sophisticated discourse
might be impossible without a command of the resources offered by the grammar of the
given language, the consideration of the importance of grammar is considered expedient.
Grammatical connections are displayed in both spoken and written discourses between
individual clauses and utterances. These grammatical links can be classified under
reference, ellipsis, substitution and conjunction.

2.5.Discourse analysis and Vocabulary

This aspect can also be called lexical cohesion. When the word ‘vocabulary’ is used, what
readily comes to mind is lexis. Lexical cohesion involves the use of lexical devices to
achieve cohesion. Cohesion refers to the relations of meaning that words keep. Halliday
and Hasan (1976) have also had a lot of influence on the vocabulary patterns in discourse.
This has to do with the consideration of related vocabulary items which occur across
clause and sentence boundaries in written texts and across act, move and turn boundaries
in speech. The two principal kinds of lexical cohesion are: reiteration and collocation.

Reiteration: Reiteration has to do with saying or doing something repeatedly or several

times. Reiteration means either restating an item in a later part of the discourse by direct
repetition or reasserting its meaning by exploiting lexical relations. It manifests in
different ways: repetition (for instance, a word can be repeated between two sentences to
show emphasis), hyponym (when a super-ordinate term is used in place of a word, for
example, rose and flower. Rose is a hyponym of flower) and synonym (when two
different but similar words are used interchangeably).

Collocation: Collocation is a term used for words that appear to move very closely
together in a given discourse. They are words that move in company of each other. The
mention of one immediately brings to mind the other. Such words are regarded as
collocates. There are different types of collocation. They include complementaries
(brother and sister), converse (wining and dining), antonyms (coming and going these
several seasons), part and whole (building and door), part and part (driver’s seat and
passenger’s seat), co-hyponyms (fork and knife) and links (teachers and students). The
role of certain words in organizing discourses to signal discourse structure cannot be
backgrounded. Vocabulary, therefore, plays an important role in the analysis of discourse.
 11

2.6.Discourse Analysis and Phonology

Phonology, as a branch of linguistics, also has a vital role to play in discourse. The aspect
of phonology that is most significant in this regard is intonation. This is not far-fetched
from the belief that the most exciting developments in the analysis of discourse have been
in the study of the suprasegmental (with emphasis on intonation) rather than at the
segmental level (the study of phonemes and their articulation) and partly because the
teaching of intonation in phonology is open to challenges from a discourse analyst's
viewpoint.

At the segmental level, emphasis is placed on phonemes. In other words, it is the angle
where we give consideration to pronunciation (teaching). To do the teaching-learning of
such phonemes appropriately, beyond the production of sounds, similar sounds are
contrasted with other words, for example, the phonemes /p/ and /b/ in English contrast in
the words pill and bill. However, at the suprasegmental level, attention is shifted to longer
stretches. For instance, in the consideration of a stretch of spoken English discourse, the
rhythmic pattern of utterances is measured by the occurrence of stressed syllables. The
regularity or otherwise of such stressed syllables and the alternation between strong and
weak 'beats' in various patterned recurrences dictate the rhythmic pattern. Rhythm is an
important element in the teaching of phonology. Likewise in spoken discourse,
rhythmicality is seen in varying degrees in long stretches of speech. It also points attention
to the speaker, whether he is a native speaker or second learner of the language. It brings
to fore how careful a speaker is in the consideration of deliveries such as (news)
broadcast, talks, teaching, reading speeches and citations, as well as some ordinary
conversation. Also, since English is seen as a stress-timed language, unlike most Nigerian
languages which are syllable-timed, the spoken discourses of the natives of both origins
are likely to differ. The principal distinction is brought as a result of the difference
between stress-timing and syllable-timing.

Considering intonation in discourse, speech can be divided into small units in which each
unit has at least a main or nuclear prominence. This prominence is marked by some
variation in pitch, either predominantly rising or falling. These are different tunes.
Beyond these two, there can still be a longer list such as fall-rise tune, rise-fall tune, etc.
 12

They give different meanings to different utterances. The prominence given to any
syllable in an utterance is a pointer to any significant variation in pitch that the speaker
might use. It is the duty of the speaker to decide on how the information is to be distributed
into tone groups and where the tonic is placed. The speaker rests his decision on what he
needs to say, the information he intends to pass across and what he wants to be highlighted
for the listener. With the right tune, speakers manage large stretches of interaction, in
terms of turn-taking and topic-signalling even as they use different pitch levels to interact.
The intonational cues such as turn-taking, topic-framing and topic-signalling interact with
other factors like syntax, lexis, non-verbal communication and context, and are typical of
how the different levels of encoding have to be seen. It is worthy of note to remark that
the interpretation of tone choice in spoken discourse is to see tones as fulfilling an
interactive role in signalling the intended information in discourse.
 13

3. Conclusion

Whereas other areas of language study might focus on individual parts of language such
as words and phrases (grammar) or the pieces that make up words (linguistics), discourse
analysis looks at a running conversation involving a speaker and listener (or a writer's
text and its reader).

In discourse analysis, the context of a conversation is taken into account as well as what's
being said. This context may encompass a social and cultural framework, including the
location of a speaker at the time of the discourse, as well as nonverbal cues such as body
language, and, in the case of textual communication, it may also include images and
symbols.

It can be used by businesses, academic researchers, or the government, any person or

organization that wants to better understand an aspect of communication. There are many
avenues we can study through the lens of discourse analysis including discourse during a
political debate, discourse in advertising, television programming/media, interviewing,
and storytelling. By looking at the context of language use, not simply the words, we can
understand nuanced layers of meaning that are added by the social or institutional aspects
at work, such as gender, power imbalance, conflicts, cultural background, and racism. As
a result, discourse analysis can be used to study inequality in society, such as institutional
racism, inherent bias in media, and sexism.
 14

4. Bibliography

Alba-Juez, L. (2009). Perspectives on Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice.

Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse Analysis: an introduction. Continuum, NY.

Georgakopoulou Α. & D. Goutsos (2004). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Routledge:

London

Dooley, R. A. Levinson, S. H. (2000). Analyzing Discourse: a Manual of Basic Concepts.

University of North Dakota

Caulthard, M. (1985). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Longman

Liddicoat, A. (2007) An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum

Halliday, A. and Hassan, H. (1976) Cohesion in English. Longman.

Pridham, F. (2001) The language of conversation. Routledge.

Patry R., Nespoulous JL. (1990). Discourse Analysis in Linguistics: Historical and
Theoretical Background. In: Joanette Y., Brownell H.H. (eds) Discourse Ability and
Brain Damage. Springer

Harris, Z. (1952). ‘Discourse Analysis.’ Language, 28, 1-30.

Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Hymes, D. (1964). ‘Towards Ethnographies of Communication Events’ in Giglioli (1972)

ed. Language, and Social Context Harmondsworth; Penguin Books.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 15

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as a Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of

Language and Meaning. London; Edward Arnold.