Discourse Anslysis PDF

ADVANCED DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Unit 1: What is Discourse?
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OBJECTIVES
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 What is Discourse?
3.2 Discourse Analysis
3.3 Self-Assessment Exercise
3.4 Discourse Functions
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor-marked Assignment
7.0.References/Further Reading
1.0 Introduction
As you must have read in your undergraduate course material on Discourse Analysis, the earlier
approaches to the study of language were formalistic. In other words, linguists focused on the
study of the structure or form of language such as grammar, phonology, morphology rather than
on its use or functions. Ferdinand de Saussure had argued in his book, Course in General
Linguistics (published post humously in 1916) that linguists should focus on the investigation of
langue (the abstract, systematic and rule governed aspect of language) rather than parole (the
heterogeneous speech of individuals or language behaviour). This view greatly influenced the
formalistic or descriptive study of language at this time. Functionalism, on the other hand, is
closely associated with the Prague School of linguistics who became prominent since the 1930s
for their study of the functionality of language and its social role. The Prague School linguists
recognized the diversity of the functions of language and argued that the structure of language is
largely determined by the functions it performs. Discourse analysis is a functional approach to
language study. It is mainly concerned with the study of the functions which language performs
when used in speech or writing. There are varied approaches to the study of discourse, which
include but not limited to Conversational Analysis (CA), Ethnography of Communication,
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Pragmatics, Sociolinguistics, Multimodal Discourse
Analysis (MDA), and Computer Mediated Discourse Analysis (CMDA). We shall discuss some
of these approaches later in Modules 2 – 4. In this unit, we shall be looking at the meaning of the
term discourse, the different definitions of discourse analysis and the functions of language.
2.0 Objectives
At the end of this unit you should be able to do the following:
 define discourse,
 discuss Discourse Analysis
 identify and explain the Form and functions of discourse
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 What is Discourse?
Discourse analysis engages in the analysis of discourse in different discourse domains.

Depending on what an analyst is looking at, it dissects texts to reveal the hidden agenda in
particular texts. The text below is an example of discourse:
'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a
nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose
it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll
You must have heard and read about the term discourse and perhaps you have wondered why
there seems to be so many descriptions for the word. A major reason for this is that different
disciplines such as sociology, psychology, anthropology, sociology and linguistics among others
engage in the study of discourse and, thus, scholars perceive and describe the phenomenon
differently based on their analytical approach. In this section, we will examine some of the
definitions which linguists have proffered for the description of discourse. Generally, the word
discourse tends to suggest the idea of spoken or written communication. However, linguistically,
the term has been described as language above or beyond the sentence which could be in spoken
or written forms (Cutting, 2002; Yule, 2010). We must however quickly point out that a piece of
discourse could be made up of one sentence. Nonetheless, arguments are in favour of connected
successive sentences, which are viewed as offering a rich soil for the study of the relative
distribution of elements of a stretch of speech or writing. Brown and Yule (2003: 1) define
discourse simply as ‗language in use‘. This definition suggests that language takes many forms,
which are shaped by the context in which they are used. Context in this sense refers to the topic,
participants, purpose/function, activity type, time and place in which language is used.
Other descriptions of discourse include language as meaning in interaction, and language in

situational and cultural context. You would agree that these descriptions of discourse reflect
linguists‘ preoccupation with the study of language as a semiotic mode for signifying meaning.
Scholars, particularly critical theorists and those influenced by them have however argued for a
more broadened view of the term discourse. Leeuwen (2005) for example describes discourse as
the use of language and all other semiotic modes such as gesture, facial expression and other
forms of visual communication deployed for perception and expression of reality. Tannen,
Hamilton and Schiffrin (2015) on the other hand, speak of the count form ‗discourses‘ which
they note refer to a broad conglomeration of linguistic and non-linguistic social practices and
ideological assumptions that together construct or reinforce power or identity among others. The
different approaches to discourse analysis shall be examined closely in Modules 2, 3 and 4.
3.2 What is Discourse Analysis?
Discourse analysis involves studying and analyzing the uses of language (Brown & Yule, 1983).
According to Jorgensen and Philips (2002: 1), discourse analysis is the study of different patterns
that people‘s utterances follow when they take part in different domains of social life. McCarthy
(1991) explains discourse analysis to be concerned with the study of language and the contexts in
which it is used. Gee (1999) notes that discourse analysis consider how language, both spoken
and written, enacts social and cultural perspectives and identities. In other words, analysts in this
field are involved in asking questions about how language is constructed in speech and writing to
interpret the aspects of the socio-cultural contexts in which it is used. These descriptions of
discourse analysis indicate that elements of context such as topic, participants, place, time, are
relevant in the interpretation of language in use.
Analysts systematically describe and explain the structuring or patterning of both spoken and
written interactions produced in different contexts in order to provide insight to the
understanding and appreciation of texts and how they are made meaningful to language users.
One major area of divergence between traditional linguists and discourse analysts is that the
latter not only investigate language use ‗beyond the sentence boundary‘ but also prefers to
analyze ‗naturally occurring‘ language in use rather than invented examples. This type of
linguistic material is sometimes described as ‗performance data‘. Data for discourse analytical
research will be discussed more extensively in Module 5.
There are different approaches to discourse analysis based on the perspective from which the
analyst views and describes discourse and the linguist‘s affiliations and conviction (i.e.
functionalism, structuralism, social constructionism, etc.). These approaches could be simplified
into three clusters of formal linguistic discourse analysis, empirical discourse analysis and
critical discourse analysis. The first approach, formal linguistic discourse analysis, involves a
structured analysis of text in order to find general underlying rules of linguistic or
communicative function behind the text. For example, a discourse analyst could adopt a
linguistically oriented approach to discourse analysis such as Text Linguistics.
Researchers using empirical discourse analysis do not use highly structured methods to code
individual words and utterances in detail. Rather, they look for broad themes and functions of
language in action using approaches called conversation analysis (the study of "talk-in-
interaction") and genre analysis (the study of recurrent patterns, or genres of language that share
similar structure and context-such as case report or scientific article). Critical discourse analysis
is used by researchers in cultural studies, sociology, and philosophy to encompass an even wider
sphere that includes all of the social practices, individuals, and institutions that make it possible
or legitimate to understand phenomena in a particular way, and to make certain statements about
what is "true". Gee (1999) however delimits the approaches to discourse analysis to two which
are studies which look only at the ―content‖ of the language being used, the themes or issues
being discussed in a conversation or a newspaper article for example and approaches which pay
more attention to the structure of language (―grammar‖) and how this structure functions to make
meaning in specific contexts. These latter approaches are rooted in the discipline of linguistics.
Topics of discourse analysis research include various scopes of discourse such as sounds,
gestures, syntax, the lexicon, rhetoric, style, speech acts, meaning, strategies, turns and other
aspects of interaction such as the relations between discourse and power, genres, the relations
between text and context, the relations between discourse and interactions, the relations between
discourse, cognition and memory, political discourse, media discourse and medical discourse
among others. The study of discourse has been described as interdisciplinary. By
interdisciplinary, it means that researchers integrate relevant conceptual tools, methods and
insights from different theoretical disciplines in order to solve research problems. Weiss and
Wodak (2003:18) explain the advantage of an interdisciplinary approach to the study of
discourse thus: ―Interdisciplinary research ideally integrates theoretical approaches and thereby
creates new holistic approaches.‖
Self-Assessment Exercise
Describe in your own way the term discourse.
3.3 Discourse Form and Functions

We use language daily as we interact with other people but for most of us it is almost an
unconscious activity. For instance, have you ever tried to find out what functions the language
you speak performs in interactions? The study of discourse primarily revolves around the
investigation of the purposes or functions which language and indeed other semiotic modes
perform in communicative events. Linguists classify the uses of language differently. Jacobson
(cited in Tribus, 2017) identifies six functions of language which are: referential, emotive,
conative, phatic, poetic and metalinguistic. He describes the referential or context function as the
use of language to impart information. The emotive or expressive function on the other hand
refers to the use of language in expressing the speaker‘s attitude to what s/he is talking about or
towards her/his addressee. The conative function refers to the use of language for creating certain
responses in the addressee. In other words, it is the use of language for the purpose of
influencing the behaviour of the addressee and is thus concerned with the use of language for
persuading the hearer or reader. The metalinguistic function refers to the use of language to
describe itself or code. For example, when the addressee gives or asks for information about the
language or code. In this case, speakers use language to check whether they are using the same
code or understood by other speakers. The phatic function of language refers to people‘s use of
language to maintain or discontinue social relationships and the poetic function of language
focuses on the messages for its own sake. The poetic function is dominant in literary texts.
Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) classify the functions of language into three metafunctions
which are the ideational function, the interpersonal function and the textual function. The
ideational function refers to the use of language for naming things or expressing human
experience. The interpersonal function refers to the use of language for enacting social
relationships with other people around us. The textual function of language has to do with the
construction of text or building up sequences of discourse, organizing the discursive flow and
creating cohesion and continuity as it moves along. Brown and Yule (1983) narrow the use of
language to two broad categories which are the transactional and interactional functions. The
transactional function refers to the use of language for expressing content while the transactional
function refers to the use of language in expressing social relations and personal attitudes. Gee
(1999) explains that the functions of language could be seen in its use for informing, doing
things and for being (that is identity construction). In other words, language is used for getting
and giving information, helps us to get involved in actions or do things and allows us to take up
different socially significant identities.
What we can immediately draw from the different perspectives of linguists on the functions of
language from the foregoing discussion is that language is the tool that keeps society together
because people depend on it for information dissemination and managing of social relationships.
Brown and Yule have note that the categorization of the functions of language is primarily for
analytical convenience since a natural language utterance cannot be used to fulfill one function to
the total exclusion of the others. This last observation of the function of language brings us to the
influence of language function on its form in different interactions and meaning making. It is not
always that there is a direct correspondence between the grammatical form and the
communicative function. For example, an un-inverted declarative form typically associated with
‗statements‘ might be perceived as a question which requires an answer. Let us consider this
exchange below which is a discussion between a mother and her daughter:
Mother: You‘re going to the supermarket.
Daughter: No. I have changed my mind.
From the example, we can see that in analyzing and interpreting discourse form, we sometimes
depend on linguistic factors and sometimes on situational factors. Thus, McCarthy (1991)
explains that discourse analysts go beyond the mere study of language forms and are also
interested in examining the different conventions governing interactions and how language users
are able to interpret meaning accurately in different contexts. Contexts in this case, would
include physical, socio-cultural, co-text, institutional among others.
Identify and discuss the functions which language performs in society.
4.0 Conclusion
Language is a phenomenon that has attracted linguistic study over the years. Some linguists have
studied language from a formal or structural perspective while some others have studied
language from the perspective of the functions it performs in society. Discourse analysis is a
functional approach to the study of language. Discourse analysts approach the study of the use of
language from different perspectives and thus apply different analytical approaches to the
functional study of language.
5.0 Summary
In this unit, you have been provided with background information to the study of discourse
analysis. Then, different definitions of discourse and discourse analysis were considered. Finally,
you were exposed to the different classifications of the functions of language from linguists over
the years and also shown how grammatical forms could be used in their marked form in different
communicative contexts. The next unit discusses various concepts in discourse analysis.
6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment

Discuss the notion of interdisciplinarity in discourse analysis.
7.0 References/Further Reading

Brown, G. & Yule G. (1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP
Tannen, Hamilton and Schiffrin (2015). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. UK: Blackwell
Publishers Ltd.
Weiss, G. & Wodak, R. (2003). Introduction: Critical Discourse Analysis, Theory and
Interdisciplinarity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Unit 2: Historical Background of Discourse Analysis
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OBJECTIVES
MAIN CONTENT
3.0 Origin of Discourse Analysis

4.0 The Earliest Studies of Discourse Analysis
5.0 Recent Developments in the Field of Discourse Analysis
6.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
The two prevailing approaches to the study of language from 1930s to 1950s were Saussure‘s
structuralism and Chomskyan theory. These approaches were more preoccupied with the study
of langue rather than parole. In other words, they focussed on the study of the internal
functioning of grammars which were seen as closed systems independent of the possibilities
which could be observed in everyday use of language. However, some other scholars in the field
of linguistics argued that there are certain meanings and aspects of language that cannot be
understood or embraced if its study is limited to the syntactic analysis of sentences. One of the
disciplines which emerged as a result of this is discourse analysis. In this unit, we shall examine
the origin of discourse analysis, the earliest studies in discourse analysis and recent
developments in the field of discourse analysis.
2.0 Objectives
 Identify the origin of discourse analysis

 discuss the earliest studies in discourse analysis
 identify and explain recent developments in the field of discourse studies
MAIN CONTENT
3.0 Origin of Discourse Analysis
Although Discourse Analysis (DA) as a term was first used in 1952 by Zellig Harris in a paper
he published titled Discourse Analysis, the study of the functional use of language for persuasive
effectiveness dates back to 2000 years ago. In this sense, we can view Classical Rhetoric as a
precursor of contemporary stylistics and structural analysis of discourse because of its interest in
the organization, specific operations and performance of public speech. The study of Rhetoric
was however backgrounded with the emergence of comparative and historical linguistics in the
17th century. During the early 20th century, most linguistic approaches developed in the study of
language reflected intellectual activity directed towards a strict treatment of the different levels
of linguistic systems as separate, autonomous, self-contained domains. Linguistics was largely
concerned with the analysis of single sentences.
However, alongside this major research path throughout most part of the century was an interest
in discourse in other circles. For example, members of the European Structuralist Prague School
articulated their theory of Functional Sentence Perspective (Tannen, et al, 2015). Another
example is Harris‘ effort at the study of the distribution of linguistics elements in extended texts
and the links between the texts and their social situation. Although, this paper could not be said
to reflect the present discourse analysis enterprise as we know it today, yet it was part of the
efforts towards developing the study of language beyond the sentence. Harris (Zellig, 1952 cited
in Paltridge, 1988) made a significant observation that:
‗connected discourse occurs within a particular situation – whether of a person speaking,
or of a conversation, or of someone sitting down occasionally over the period of months
to write a particular kind of book in a particular literary or scientific tradition‘.
In all, one could conclude that structural analysis of culture and the further development of
structural linguistics in Europe led to the birth of modern discourse analysis in the middle 1960s.
The last quarter of the 20th century thus witnessed a blossoming of the status and field of
discourse analysis. Symposia devoted to discourse analysis began to spring up around this time
and international journals such as Discourse and Society, Discourse Studies, Journal of
Pragmatics were birthed.
Briefly explain linguistic research activities that led to the development of discourse analysis
4.0 The Earliest Studies of Discourse Analysis
The earliest works in discourse analysis were done by people in other disciplines such as
sociology, anthropology and ethnology. For example, Hymes‘ influential book titled Language
in Culture and Society published in 1964 gave much attention to forms of speech,
communication and forms of address and later developed into the analytical orientation of
Ethnography of speaking. Another approach to the study of discourse which was influenced by
the social sciences is Ethnomethodology whose proponent was the famous Sociolinguist, Harold
Garfinkel. An example of Ethnomethodological approach to research is Conversation Analysis
which is mainly concerned with the study of speech in its social setting. Researchers using this
approach observe and describe the sequential patterning of conversation. The key figures in this
school of thought are Emmanuel Schegloff, Harvey Sacks and Gail Jefferson. The linguistic
philosophers – Austin (1962), Searle (1969) and Grice (1975) were also influential in the study
of language as social action, as reflected in speech act theory and the formulation of
conversational maxims.
The first major attempt to analyse discourse from the perspective of linguistics came from John
Sinclair and Michael Coulthard, both from the University of Birmingham. They developed a
model for the description of teacher-pupil talk, based on a hierarchy of discourse units. British
discourse analysis was also greatly influenced by Michael Halliday‘s (1973) systemic-functional
and social-semiotic framework which emphasised the social functions of language and the
thematic and informational structure of speech and writing. Other scholars from American
School also examined types of speech event such as storytelling, greeting rituals and verbal duels
in different cultural settings (Gumperz and Hymes, 1972). We shall examine in details the
analytical methods of Conversational Analysis, Classroom discourse analysis and Text
Linguistics in Module 2 of this course.
Reflect on the research activities in discourse analysis at its early stage. Can you mention briefly
describe two approaches to discourse analysis at this stage?
5.0 Recent Developments in the Field of Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis is a rapidly growing and evolving field. Current research in the field now
flows from academic disciplines that are different from one another. Included in discourse
research are disciplines in which the models for understanding and analysing discourse first
developed such as linguistics, anthropology and philosophy. Other disciplines such as
communication, cognitive psychology, social psychology and artificial intelligence among others
are also applying and of course extending the discourse models and methods to solving problems
within their own academic domains. One of them is Discursive Psychology which emerged
within Social Psychology. This approach to discourse study is interested particularly in the way
‗psychological‘ notions (for example, ‗memory‘) are generally produced in discourse and
particularly in conversation. Discursive Psychology as pioneered by Michael Billig (1987),
Jonathan Potter (1996) and Derek Edwards (1997) rejected individual psychological notions such
as attitudes and rather sought alignment with ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and
social constructivism. Another evolving approach to the study of discourse is Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA), originally introduced in a seminal book: Language and Control (1979), written
by Roger Fowler, Gunther Kress, Bob Hodge and Tony Trew, and later developed by Norman
Fairclough (1989) in the UK, Ruth Wodak (1989) in Austria and Teun A. van Dijk (1993) in the
Netherlands. Multimodal Discourse Analysis (MDA) and Computer Mediated Discourse
Analysis (CMDA) are also approaches to discourse analysis which have developed alongside
advancements in communication and information technology. Some of these approaches will
also be discussed extensively in Module 3 and 4.
6.0 Conclusion
The origin of the study of discourse could be traced to Zelling Harris in the 1950s. Since then,
scholars from the humanities and social sciences have studied discourse as a social phenomenon.
Due to the influence of researchers‘ theoretical backgrounds, the study of discourse is
approached from different perspectives and approaches. The new developments in the field of
discourse analysis indicate that new trends and approaches to the study of discourse as a
phenomenon are still unfolding and will continue to do so for a long time.
7.0 Summary
The origin and development of discourse analysis was the main concern of this unit. We traced
the development of the study of discourse from 1950s to some recent approaches to discourse
analysis. There is no doubt that developments in this field are still evolving as more scholars get
involved in the study of discourse as a social phenomenon.
Tutor-Marked Assignment
1. Identify five approaches to research in discourse analysis
2. What are the distinguishing differences between the early stage research in discourse
analysis and the current approaches?

Brown, G & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gee, J.P. (2018). Introducing Discourse Analysis: From Grammar to Society. London:
Routledge.
Unit 3: DISCOURSE AND DISCOURSES

UNIT 3:
Content
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Discourse Forms
3.2 Classifications of Discourse
3.2.1 Classification according to discipline
3.2.2 Classification according to function
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor Marked Assignment
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In the previous units you learnt about discourse, and the different definitions of discourse were
outlined and explained. Here, we extend further the discussion of the term ‗discourse‘. What this
means is that discourse will go beyond the traditional definition of discourse being broken down
just into spoken and written elements. This is owing to the fact that the advancement in
information technology has brought about many forms of discourse patterns. Discourses have,
apart from verbal and written forms extended to any semiotic element that can be subjected to
analytical procedure to produce meaning.
You will in this course encounter different forms and classifications of discourse. Efforts will
also be made to introduce you to some forms of contemporary methods of communicating that
constitute discourses.
I hope that by the end of the Unit, you will have had some new thoughts and ideas about what
constitute discourse; you are also expected to read up the references presented at the end of the
unit as they will help you to understand better what this unit specifically focuses on.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
 Say the reason why any semiotic element can constitute discourse
 Be able to come to terms with the fact that discourse in contemporary times have
extended to all semiotic elements through which meaning can be derived.
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1. DISCOURSE FORMS

Discourse forms are the various ways through which discourse can manifest. Solitary discourse
or (monologue) is the discourse from one source only. Some ways through which monologue can
manifest are: someone engaging in soliloquy either consciously or unconsciously, somebody
doing incantations at road junctions and so on. Monologues can also occur in dramas where a
character may be speaking to him/herself. Monologues can occur in formal and informal settings.
With discourses becoming multimodal, a character in a monologic discourse can employ other
discourse element in the monologue as can be seen in the female picture in fig. 1 below:
Examples of a monologue:
(A) Mr. Iyere: Oh my God, if I had known this examination questions would be so tough I
would have studied harder for this course.
Oh my God, If I had
known that Advanced
discourse analysis
examination questions
would be this tough I
would have studied
harder for this course
Source: Source: National Open University of Nigeria staff (2020)
Felicia: I am really happy Advanced discourse analysis questions were so easy for me.
I am really happy
Advance discourse
analysis questions
were so easy for
me.
Fig.1 different pictures of people in a monologic discourse
Source: National Open University of Nigeria staff (2020)

Apart from monologic discourse, discourse can also manifest through dialogues. Dialogic form
of discourse occurs between two interlocutors; it can be formal or informal. Examples of official
dialogic discourse are between a supervisor and a supervisee, between a doctor and a patient, a
boss and an employee, a lecturer and a student and so on. Informal dialogic discourse can occur
between a mother and child, between two siblings, between two friends. If you engage in a
conversation with your course mate, you will be said to be in a dialogue. In a dialogic event,
depending on the social status of each of the interlocutors, the current speaker has the floor and
at the end of his/her speech the partner takes over. This turn taking continues until the discourse
is over. The two speakers may or may not have the same cultural background.
It is not only people who can talk verbally that can engage in dialogue; the deaf and dumb also
engage dialogues using signs. These signs can also be subjected to discourse analysis. They also
know when to give the other person the floor. Because of technology, dialogues has also taken
on new forms, sometimes you can see someone talking and not see who he/she is talking to. The
device connecting them may be visible or not visible as is in the case of someone talking with
another person far away through an earpiece. The earpiece could be with cord or cordless.
Interviews are also forms of dialogic discourse. Interviews can be symmetrical or asymmetrical.
Fig. 2 Different dialogic settings
Source: Google stock images/ National Open University of Nigeria staff (2020)
Sample discourse between two friends (dialogue):

Speaker A: I wonder why the fuel crisis in this country persists. Imagine, I spent almost two
hours on the queue yesterday trying to fuel my car.
Speaker B. But you eventually bought. Hmmm, mine was more disgusting, after I have been on
the queue for close to two hours, just five cars to mine the fuel station manager announced that
they have ran out of fuel!
Discourses can manifest in multilogues too. Multilogue discourses can occur in formal or
informal settings. In a Multilogue, you have so many people involving in a discourse; examples
of multilogues are: family meetings, village meetings, conferences, drama, soap operas and so
no. With new technologies, multilogue can occur in conference calls through the phone, when
people engage in a discourse. Apart from phone conference call, teleconferencing as the name
implies occur when people from different locations see and discuss with one another about a
specific issue. Teleconferencing is common in the corporate world especially with bankers. In a
multilogue, we can have many to many, that is, the same number of people on both side of the
group as in a debate. We can also have a few to many manifestable in a quarrel, when you have
many people against a few. It can also occur in What Sapp group chats, group versus group
skypping and so on.
Fig.3 Different pictures of multilogue (teleconferencing, meetings)
Source: Google stock images/ National Open University of Nigeria staff (2020)
You can see that the discourse is multimodal. Different devices are deployed for communication
Sample Multilogue between bankers in a teleconference:

Speaker A (The chairman): Good morning all, now that we have all branch managers on, can we
start the meeting? It is going to be brief.
All participants: yes sir.
Speaker A: I want to have the progress report of withdrawals from the ATM in the last one
week.
Speaker B: my branch experienced huge withdrawals close to 400 million Naira. The machines
are in good condition.
Speaker C. One of the ATMs at my branch is faulty, so it affected the amount withdrawn in the
last one week.
The discourse participants continue until they get to the discourse closing when the chairman
rounds off the discourse. Intermittently, some of the participants may refer to their ipads for
clarification of figures.
3.2 CLASSIFICATIONS OF DISCOURSE
Traditionaly, discourse was broken down largely into oral and written. Where oral is any
utterance made from the mouth and written—any information which any literate person can read.
Not only does language manifest through oral and written, other modes of communicating are
coming up every day to help people express themselves. As Halliday (1985:82) predicts: when
new demands are made on language… [it] changes in response to them. …[W]e are making
language work for us in ways it never had to do before, it will have to become a different
language in order to cope. This view of discourse by Halliday seems to be broader because it
subsumes every meaning making element under discourse.
As has been mentioned before, the information age is characterized by the rapid advancement of
technology, with the introduction of new discourse tools for the expression of meaning, this
shows that new realities come up every day that may not strictly fall under the classification of
oral and written.
Note that discourses exist in different disciplines such as linguistics, sociology, anthropology,
psychology, ethnography etc., in each of these disciplines, discourse has varied but overlapping
shades of meaning. A common thread that links discourse in all these fields is meaning. That is,
discourse as essentially about meaning making. This meaning making is procedural, which is
brought about through discourse analysis. We are not going to discuss ‗discourse analysis‘ here
since we are going to examine different methods of analyzing discourse in a later module in this
course.
It is important you understand that any meaning making element constitutes discourse. If you
suddenly notice some strange signs in an environment you are very familiar with, you definitely
will feel some abstract meaning coming to you. The signs put together will constitute some form
of discourse which has imparted some meaning to you. The general feeling one get when
exposed to any form of discourse can be classified. This brings us to the sub-topic classification
of discourse.
3.2.1 Classification according to discipline
Discourse can be classified using criteria such as discipline, function and the purpose it is
serving. If we are classifying discourse according to discipline, we will have academic
discourse, political discourse, religious discourse, medical discourse, entertainment
discourses, legal discourse and so on. These discourses as their names imply will focus on
themes relating to their various areas. Thus, if you see a van with various posters of politicians
you don‘t need anybody to tell you that it belongs to a particular political group. That van on its
own is a discourse element. Also, if you as a student come to NOUN headquarters and you see
the senate building, without being told you will know that it is the seat of power. It is discourse
on its own because it provides meaning; and the building itself can be subjected to analysis
(discourse analysis), this in a way shows that discourse is multimodal—being beyond just oral
and written elements. You can see that the examples above constituting discourse were neither
written nor spoken. The point is that, whatever class of discourse you are engaged in, the
multimodal elements should tighten the ideas to form a unified whole.
3.2.2 Classification according to function
When you read a piece of work, you get some kind of ideas apart from the thematic focus of that
piece of work. The ideas and feelings you get from different pieces of work differ. These feelings
or emotional drive you get can be broadly be said to be the purpose or function of that piece of
work. A piece of discourse no matter how long or how short, if it contains structures that appeals
to the emotion of the target audience, can be classified as being persuasive. Political discourse
falls under this category. When people want to get others to do something they use the language
or any other persuasive tool that will appeal to their targets‘ sense of reasoning. Persuasive
discourses come in hyperbolic and flowery language. The different discourses according to
disciplines outlined above can use persuasive structures too.
According to Wodak (1996), persuasive discourses have the ability to make people do things
which they ordinarily will not do. To Wodak, discourse is structured by dominance and that
every discourse is historically produced and interpreted; and possibly persuasive or
‗manipulative‘ structures of discourses can be unraveled through analytical procedures.
Osborn and Osborn (2015) outline some kinds of proof employed in a persuasive discourse.
According to them, pathos is proof based on motives and emotions‘ (379). Here, the discourse is
patterned in a way that it appeals primarily to the targets‘ emotions to move them to do
something. Ethos assumes that people can be persuaded by the personal influence of the source
of the message (382). To get your target to do your bidding in a persuasive discourse, you must
project the impression that you are sincere, trustworthy, honest and transparent. When discourse
originators deploy persuasive mechanisms such as faith, feelings and values that make up the
social character of a people in their discourses, they are using the persuasive tool called mythos.
Some discourses can be descriptive; such discourses will paint a vivid picture of the focus of the
piece in the mind of the reader. In other words, the discourse will be what the reader can perceive
through his/her senses or imagination. The reader gets a feel of the things, experience or quality
of the theme of the discourse. The things described can be anything the reader can grasp through
the senses. If for instance, a piece of discourse describes how through a difficult process a
sojourner through the hazardous sea route from Nigeria through Libya gets to Europe, the piece
can be categorized as a descriptive one. Apart from using words to describe this process, visuals
or other meaning making semiotic element can be used to create this feeling too. The feeling one
gets through a descriptive discourse can be palatable or unpalatable.
The prefix ‗ex‘ in the term expository comes from Greek through Latin. It means ‗out‘ or ‗away
from‘. Expository discourse explains, analyzes and makes something clear for the reader. This
kind of discourse also gives directions. The main intention is to inform, to make the reader or
audience aware of the topic of a discussion. If and when you finish your M.A. thesis, it is going
to fall under expository discourse because you have made a discovery or supported existing
discoveries which you want your reader to know.
Narrative discourse usually involves relating a series of event usually in a chronological order.
The story narrated may be fictional, but when the narration is on real life event, it may be
classified as an autobiography, biography, history or a newspaper report. The narration whether
fictional or nonfictional, presents what happened and how it happened. Narrative discourse
gives the sense of witnessing an action. Examples are literary works such as novels, dramas,
stage plays and folklores.
A discourse can be classified as argumentative if its purpose is to convince through logic.

Argumentative discourse is based on a belief or opinion that the writer holds as true. To make the
argument acceptable, the writer must build a case to support his/her argument. To do this, the
writer presents some cases and provides evidence to support the case. Some scholarly works can
be argumentative, where the writer aims to convince his/her readers about a belief or opinion.
The label transactional discourse can be used to label the kind of discourse that conveys
messages in such a way that the messages are easily understandable without any ambiguity or
confusion. Instructions, manuals, policies, doctors‘ prescription for patients all fall under this
category.
Contemporary communicative methods such as What Sapp texts are discourses, the pictures you
have on your histogram page can be discourse, tweets can constitute discourse. The American
president Donald Trump is known for his numerous tweets. Even the Skype you engage in is
discourse. I know of a lady who a company employed after skypping her; she got the job because
according to the interviewers, the environment where she was at 10:15pm when she was Skyped
suggested she was at home. This act is also discourse. Some years back these modes of
communicating were not there. So if we define discourse solely as written and spoken elements,
we would be leaving out these new forms of communication.
To end this sub-section, it is important to state that there is no clear cut dichotomy between
discourse types, while some discourses will overtly fall into one classification, some can oscillate
between two classes. Different types of discourse are usually better suited for different
circumstances, and there are usually some clear distinguishable features of each. Most of the
time, writers and speakers will use the discourse type they think will be most effective at getting
their points across to their intended audiences.
3.3 Self-Assessment Exercises
 Scout around and get a copy each of the different types of discourse according to
discipline outlined above, see if you can identify structures in them that differentiates
them from one another.
 Try and classify the different What Sapp messages you receive in a day
 Assume you are the Bank manager of Chibest bank, describe how you will link some of
your workers through conference call for a discussion.
4.0 Conclusion
We have in this unit shown that any piece whether spoken, written, visual, pictorial, aural can
constitute discourse. What constitute discourse differ from one place to another. The discussion
of discourse presented here shows that as the world progresses new discourse modes will
continue to come up. We cannot live without engaging in different types of discourse.
5.0 Summary
In this unit, we have looked at discourse as being beyond spoken and written elements.
Discourses have extended beyond traditional classification to include all contemporary means of
communication. The forms of discourse can be monologue, dialogue or multilogue. Discourse
can be classified using two broad criteria—according to discipline and according to function.
On the one hand, when discourse is classified according to discipline, we have academic
discourse, political discourse, religious discourse, medical discourse, entertainment discourses,
legal discourse and so on, on the other, when discourse is classified according to function we
have persuasive, expository, argumentative and narrative discourses. It is important for you to
know at this level of you course that every discourse elements can be subjected to analytical
procedure to pass across meaning.

1. Give a brief discussion of the functions of contemporary discourse types
2. Outline the linguistic features you are likely to find in a political discourse
3. in what ways can you say contemporary discourses types differ from traditional discourse
types?
Fairclough, Norman (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Spoken and Written Language. Deakin University
Kust, T. (2015) University discourse in computer-mediated communication: philosophical,
sociological and cultural grounds for linguistic description. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 166, Elsevier, 409-414
Locke, Terry. Critical Discourse of Analysis. London: Continuum International Publishing

Group, 2004.
Osisanwo, W. (2003). Introduction to discourse analysis and pragmatics. Lagos: Femolus-Fetop

Publishers.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1984a) Prejudice in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Widdowson, H.G. (1995) Discourse Analysis: A Critical view. Language and Literature,
Wodak, Ruth. (1996) Disorders of Discourse. London: Longman.
Osborn, M., Osborn, S. and Osborn, R (2015.) Public Speaking: Finding Your Voice. Pearson
Web source: https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/product/Osborn-Public-Speaking-

Finding-Your-Voice-Subscription-10th-Edition/9780133893427.htm accessed 23rd January
2018
UNIT 4: CONCEPTS IN DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Unit Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Traditional concepts in discourse analysis
3.1.1The notion of Text
3.1.2 The Notion of ‗Discourse‘ in Discourse Analysis
3.1.3 The role of context in discourse analysis
3.1.2. The notion of Texture
3.2 The distinction between discourse and text
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
7.0 References and Further Reading
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In Unit 3 of this module, you learnt about discourse and discourses. The unit introduced you
to the forms discourse and discourses can manifest through. It also pointed out that
discourses can be classified according to disciple and function. This unit presents concepts
in discourse analysis; since you learnt that discourse has taken on new dimensions because of
the advancement in technology, you are going to encounter new concepts other than the
traditional ones you know. You are expected to read up the references at the end of the unit
as they will help you to understand better what this unit specifically focuses on.
2.0 Unit Objectives

 Describe traditional concepts in discourse
 Be familiar with emerging concepts in discourse
 Distinguish between the term text, context and discourse
 Know what power and ideology are
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 .Traditional concepts in discourse analysis
Traditionally, discourse and its definition can broadly be looked at from three angles. The first, a
classic definition of discourse deriving from the formalist sees discourse as language above the
sentence or above the clause; it draws its impetus from the formalist approach which focus on the
way different units function in relation to one another. This definition will treat individual
elements in discourse as being meaningful depending on their relationship with other linguistic
elements. Another definition of discourse is based on the functionalist view that is, the study of
discourse is the study of any aspect of language use. A definition of discourse as language use is
consistent with functionalism in general: discourse is viewed as a system (a socially and
culturally organized way of speaking) through which particular functions are realized. Functional
definitions of discourse assume an interrelationship between language and context. Yet another
definition views discourse as being (larger than) other units of language. Whatever the angle
from which discourse has been defined, scholars have used different terms to label the concepts
used in the discussion of discourse (see Widdowson, 1979, Schiffrin, 1994 van Dijk, 1972). The
consensual concepts are: text, discourse, context and texture.
3.1.1 The notion of text
The word ‗text‘ comes from the Latin term texere, meaning to weave. It assumes different
meanings in different fields. Most definitions of text deriving from the Latin meaning, place text
as a linguistic structure woven out of signs or words. Halliday and Hasan define text as 'a unit of
language in use': a text is viewed not as a grammatical unit (a clause or a sentence) but as a
semantic unit, that is, a unit of meaning, not a unit of form. Fairclough considers text as the
writtern and spoken language produced in a discursive event (1993:138). To Fairclough, any
discursive event can be analysed as text.
Traditionally ‗text‘ was first used to denote parts of the Bible studied by scholars, or the body of
a literary work which was subject to the scrutiny of editors and bibliographers. Then emphasise
on the object of scrutiny was on the formal structure of linguistic items and not meaning. In
contemporary times, people use ‗text‘ to signify any piece of written or spoken discourse be it
linguistic or literary.
A text contains meaningful not distorted words or letters that is understandable and open for
interpretation to the reader or critic. You can subject a text to linguistic or literary analysis
Our concern in this course is to define text and situate it within the realm of linguistics. So, in
linguistics, the word ‗text‘ is exploited to refer to any passage, spoken or written, of whatever
length, that does construct a unified whole. According to Widdowson (1979), ―a text is a
collection of formal objects held together by patterns of equivalence or frequencies or by
cohesive devices‖. Widdowson‘s definition of text underscores the need for unification in the
linguistic devices in a text. A text may be a monologue, dialogue or multilogue. The different
forms of discourse you encountered in unit three are also texts. A text can be a single word like:
come, eat, stop, ugly and so on, can be a phrase: is dancing, let us eat. Complete sentences can
constitute texts too, for example: Anthonia is an elegant lady; I feel like dancing; they have
refused to accept the offer. Plays like Ola Rotimi‘s The Gods Are Not To Blame, Wole
Soyinka‘s Kongi‘s Harvest, and proses like Things Fall Apart, by Chinua Achebe; Purple
Hibiscus by Chimamanda Adichie, biographies and autobiographies are all texts. They can be
subjected to linguistic or literary analysis. A text is realized by, or encoded in clauses or
sentences. When we refer to something as a text, we mean its linguistic structure or the signs
therein that convey meaning and allow for interpretation Texts are linguistic representations of
reality
SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
How does Isidore Okpewho‘s The Victims constitute text?
3.1.2 The notion of ‗Discourse‘ in Discourse Analysis

A discourse is made up of utterances having the property of coherence. Discourses are viewed as
having a systemic character (they have an internal order). Discourses are set apart by
terminologies or registers. In that you can easily differentiate a legal discourse from a religious
one. The terminologies and concepts in a particular discourse lead to a unified whole. In other
words, terminologies and concepts contribute to the theme of the discourse. The aim of discourse
analysis therefore, is to analyse the way terminologies and concepts work across the boundaries
of single sentences or utterances to form meaningful whole (rather than a collection of unrelated
sentences).
3.1.3 The role of context in Discourse Analysis
Traditional discourse analysts ignored context in the analysis of utterances. Context is very
important in everyday life and in doing discourse analysis. The context of an idea or event is the
general situation that relates to it, and which helps it to be understood. Linguistic structures make
meaning in different contexts. For instance, the word ‗bear‘ can mean so many things depending
on the context in which it is uttered.
1. The bear is beautiful

2. James cannot bear the pain
3. That mango tree may bear fruit this season
4. Edirin cannot bear children
5. If we bring all that was discussed in the meeting to bear on this issue, we will make no
progress.
The meaning of ‗bear’ in any of the utterances above is different from the others because of the
context in which it occurs. Each meaning is derived as a result of the surrounding linguistic
items. This means that discourse analyst has to take account of the context in which a piece of
discourse occurs to get the real meaning. Another factor to consider when talking of context is
the speaker\writer or source of the utterance. If a policeman comes to your house and says to you
‗you are under arrest‘. The utterance will generate fear and anxiety, but if the same utterance is
made by a friend it will generate laughter. Also, if you are a tenant and the landlord of the house
where you live sees you one morning and says to you ‗Hey Mr. Segun you must pack out of my
house this month end‘, this utterance will somehow create confusion for you especially if you
were in a good rapport with your landlord before the utterance. But if the same utterance is made
by a fellow tenant it will not generate the kind of anxiety or confusion it did when uttered by the
landlord. All these show that the source and context of an utterance is important in determining
the meaning of an utterance.
Apart from the role context play in the comprehension of utterances or sentences, we also have
reference, presupposition, implicature and inference that can add meaning to discourse.
Reference is an act of directing or indicating something by using some linguistic elements, 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, when the
same thing is mentioned in the discourse the second time. For example:
1. Seven people were injured in the fracas. They have been taken to the hospital.
2. Festus graduated with a first class degree from the University Calabar. His hard work,
resilience and intelligence earned him the class of degree.
3. The weather today is very cold, who knows it may be warm tomorrow.
4. Cooking is my hobby; I enjoy doing it a lot.
In the first example, ‗they’ in the second sentence refers to the subject ‗seven people’. Repeating
‗seven people’ in the second sentence would sound boring and monotonous. In the second
example, ‘his’ and ‘him’ points back to ‗Festus’; ‘it’ in example three refers back to ‘weather’
likewise, ‘it’ in the fourth example refers back to ‘cooking’.
There are two referential devices that can create cohesion: Anaphoric and Cataphoric. Anaphoric
reference occurs when the writer or speaker refers back to someone or something that has been
previously identified, to avoid repetition. So we can say then that the pronouns ‗they‘, ‗his‘,
‗him‘ and ‗it‘ in the above examples are anaphoric elements. Cataphoric reference on the other
hand is a reference forward as opposed to backward in a discourse. The pronoun of someone or
something is introduced in the discourse before the name is mentioned. For instance:
1. There she goes, the Nobel prize winner for short stories—Mrs Ifeyinwa Uzoigwe
2. It barked all night long—Bingo the dog.
In the two examples above, we do not know who ‗she‘ or ‗it‘ is until later in the sentence.
Writers use this type of reference to hold the reader‘s attention and to create suspense in their
works.
There is also exophoric device which does not really create cohesion in texts. The prefix "exo" in
‗exophoric‘ means ‗outside‘, and the persons or events referred to in this manner will never be
identified by the writer. Exophoric reference is used by writers to describe generics or abstract
phenomena without ever identifying them. This is in contrast to anaphoric and cataphoric devices
which do identify the entity and are thus forms of endophora. Rather than introduce a concept, a
writer refers to it by a generic word such as ‗anything‘, ‗everything‘. Halliday and Hasan
considered exophoric reference as not cohesive, since it does not tie two elements together in a
text.
Ellipsis (…) also creates cohesion in text and discourses. It happens in a conversation when
specific words, phrases are omitted to avoid unnecessary repetition.
Take a look at the conversation below:
Dele: who took the book on the table?
Yusuf: Kiemute.
Wabba: are you sure?
In the above utterance, the full form of Yusuf‘s full reply is ‗Kiemute took the book on the table‘
The full form of Wabba‘s question in response to Yusuf‘s is ‗are you sure Kiemute took the book
on the table? In both responses, ‗took the book on the table‘ has been omitted.
Presupposition is an assumption or belief in an utterance mainly in language use; it is a

preliminary conjecture. For example, if I say my cousin is beautiful. It is presupposed that I have
either an aunt or an uncle who gave birth to my cousin. Presupposition is defined in terms of
assumptions the speaker makes of the utterance s/he hears.
Implicature is what is implied in an utterance or in a behaviour. The term 'implicature' is used by

Grice (1975) to account for what a speaker can imply, suggest, or mean, as distinct from what the
speaker literally says. There are unwritten rules interlocutors are supposed to observe in
conversation, these are called cooperative principle. Conversational implicature, derived from
Cooperative principle according to Grice contains a number of maxims which speakers should
obey in speech or conversation. Interlocutors must speak cooperatively and mutually accept one
another‘s contribution as true. The cooperative principle describes how effective communication
is achieved in common social situations.
The conversational maxims according to Grice (1975) are: Quantity: Make your contribution as
informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). In other words,
interlocutors in a conversation should give all that is needed for a comprehension of a
conversation. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. Quality: Do not
say what you believe to be false. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. Relation:
Be relevant. Manner: Be perspicuous. Avoid obscurity of expression. Avoid ambiguity. Be brief
(avoid unnecessary prolixity). Be orderly. An interlocutor may intentionally decide to flout one
or more of the maxims. When one deliberately tells lies in a discussion, one is flouting the
maxim of quality.
Though Grice has enumerated the maxims to be adhered to in a conversation, some people either
consciously or unconsciously flouts one or more of the maxims in conversation. For instance, in
a robbery case, an innocent person may be roped in and forced to confess to a crime s/he did not
commit, in such a case s/he may be seen by the listening audience as saying the truth, but within,
s/he is breaking the maxim of quality. Of all the maxims, the maxim of quality is the most
flouted.
Speaker one: I am hungry
Speaker two: there is a restaurant down the street.

For speaker A, though B did not say it openly, he implied that A should go and eat in the
restaurant down the street. Implicatures are pragmatic aspects of meaning and have certain
identifiable characteristics. They are partially derived from the conventional or literal meaning of
an utterance, produced in a specific context which is shared by the speaker and the hearer, and
their adherence of the Cooperative Principle and its maxims. Since the discourse analyst, like the
hearer, has no direct access to a speaker's intended meaning in producing an utterance, he often
has to rely on a process of inference to arrive at an interpretation for utterances or for the
connections between utterances. This brings us to the next discourse element that can also add
meaning to discourse—inference. Inference is what on the other way round what an utterance is
interpreted to mean. For example:
1. If Jide is short, it can be inferred from the utterance that he is not tall
2. Adaku is pregnant, even though the hearer of the utterance does not understand the language
to know whether the name ‗Adaku‘ is borne by a man or a woman, it can be inferred that Adaku
is a woman.
It is important to note that it is not all the time that inferred meaning is right. The inference from
an ambiguous sentence may not be in tandem with the speaker/writer‘s intended meaning.
SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
How does context affect the meaning of utterances?
3.1.3. The NOTION OF TEXTURE
When you look around you observe that the natural world is not distorted, it is organized, that is,
it is rich in texture. Objects often display contradicting yet unified properties; just as natural
objects have relationship with one another, so also do linguistic elements in a text have
relationship with one another to form a unified whole. The notion of texture was introduced by
Halliday and Hasan to express the property of being a text. A text derives its texture from the
fact that it functions as a unified whole as a result of the mutual relationship between linguistic
items. The fact that a text functions as a unity with respect to its environment derives from
‗texture‘. If a passage of English containing more than one sentence is perceived as a text, there
will be certain linguistic features present in the passage which can be identified as contributing to
its total unity and giving it texture. So texture in discourse is the basis for unity and semantic
interdependence within a text. A text without texture would just be a group of random sentences
with no relationship to one another.
For exmaple: Mr and Mrs. Nwachukwu are sociolinguists. They lecture in National Open
University of Nigeria. The metallic brown coloured SUV parked down the road is theirs.
‗They’ and ‗theirs’ in sentences 2 and 3 respectively refer back to Mr and Mrs. Nwachukwu.
The anaphoric function of ‗they‘ and ‗theirs‘ gives cohesion to the three sentences. These
pronouns also have removed the monoteneity of repeating Mr. and Mrs. Nwachukwu, so that we
interpret them as a whole. The three sentences together constitute a text. So, it is the texture
which makes these three sentences a text.
To achieve texture in texts, two main concepts are used: Cohesion and Coherence. Cohesion
refers to the connections which have their manifestation in the discourse itself. Cohesion is one
part of the study of texture, which considers the interaction of cohesion with other aspects of text
organization.
The relation between ‗theirs’, ‗they’ and ‗Mr. and Mrs. Nwachukwu‘ in the above example
constitute two ties. We can characterize any segment of a text in terms of the number and kinds
of ties which it displays. In the above example there are two ties referred to as reference.
Cohesion as part of the study of texture refers to the relations of meaning that exist within the
texts, and that defines it as a text. Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some element in
the discourse is dependent on that of another. The one presupposes the other, in the sense that it
cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse to it. Martinec (1998: 162) states that feature
selections and structures of the textual meaning ―enable the ideational and interpersonal ones to
form the cohesive wholes called phases‖. Thus, any stretch of written text can be said to be
cohesive when it realises the ideational, interpersonal, and textual meanings. According to Baker
and Ellec, (2011:195) cohesive ties between sentences stand out more clearly because they are
the only source of texture.
Texture, in turn, is one aspect of ...Coherence: it refers to the connections that can be made by
the listener or by the reader on the basis of their knowledge outside the discourse. Texture takes
the social context of texture into consideration (Halliday 1994: 309). The term‘texture‘ is
generally associated with research inspired by Halliday (1964) and Hasan (1968) in systemic
functional linguistics.
If a stretch of language including more than one sentence is perceived as a text, there will be
certain linguistic features contributing to its total unity and giving it texture. A text is not a
collection of unrelated sentences. The existence of connectives between sentences is an essential
feature of discourse: connections give a text its texture and distinguish it from a random string of
unconnected sentences.
Go through unit 3 again, can you identify the discourse devices that helped in achieving texture
in the text?
3,2 Distinction Between Text And Discourse

There are arguments and counter arguments of what should constitute a text and what should
constitute discourse. Many studies have used models originally developed for studying spoken
form to investigate written form (Tadros 1981), and vice versa (Hoey 1983). Thus, such a
distinction is not necessary. Many researchers have come to this conclusion: Discourse analysis
includes all studies investigating the supra-sentential structure of any stretch of language, spoken
or written.
In traditional (older) forms of discourse analysis, the term ‗discourse‘ was used interchangeably
with text, so the written text was referred to as written discourse and vice versa. Baker and Ellec
(2011) say that there is distinction made between discourse and text.‖ The words text and
discourse mean different things. The basic meaning of discourse in modern ordinary usage is
talk. Originally, the term came from the Medieval Latin term discurrere (meaning to circulate or
to run on). It has been more frequently used to refer to prepared forms of spoken language such
as speeches, where people run on about a topic, than to spontaneous talk. Discourse involves the
speaker‘s awareness of the audience and containing text which is written to be orally delivered in
a specific situation or context.
The modern meaning of discourse has evolved to encompass casual conversations, which just
like formal speeches, run from one person to another: speakers make an effort to give their
interactions shape and connectedness, as an integral part of co-operating with another speaker to
create meaning.
The propose of text, therefore, is to relay or communicate information and may often be non-
interactive, meaning the reader of the text is an observer. Discourse then is used in a
nontechnical sense to mean conversational communication.
To study text, you study the written words that communicate some information: structure, theme,
meaning, rhetorical devices, etc. To study discourse, you study who is communicating with
whom through what medium and for what social purpose. Let us use this answer as an example.
To study or analyze a text, you will note the overall structure and you will grasp the meaning of
the content as it answers your question. To study or analyze a piece of discourse, you will
determine who is communicating with whom through what medium and for what social purpose.
You may also look at the purpose of the discourse. Discourse can occur through different
medium—textual, visual, aural etc. Discourse has multiple interactive layers and it has multiple
complex social purposes. You can find the multiple layers in various media that comprise the
social event and the various purposes of discourse
The distinction between text and discourse is not clear-cut .There are many scholars (such as
brown and yule) who talked about written and spoken text and others talked about written and
spoken discourse .Hawthorn (1992)says ―Text may be non- interactive whereas discourse is
interactive .This means text only convey some meaning while discourse involves in both formal
and informal conversations or it is the use of written and spoken language in a social context.
Brown and Yule, 1983:ix)refer to discourse as how human use language to communicate‖
Some writers such as van Dijk refer to text analysis as discourse analysis and some discourse
analysts focus on how meaning and structure are signaled in text. Others, especially since the
early 1990s, have used discourse analysis more critically to examine issues relating to power,
inequality and ideology (Baker and Ellec, 2011:32) Brown and Yule (1983:190) defined ‗text‘ as
the verbal record of a communicative event. They state that ―text depends on cohesive
relationship within and between the sentences, which create texture. A discourse then is made up
of utterances having the property of coherence. It can be concluded that discourse is used in a
very comprehensive way for all those aspect of the situation and context of communication not
only the message (spoken or written) but also the relationship between the addresser and
addressee. In this sense, discourse would subsume the text, and is an umbrella which covers a
wide variety of actual research practices with quite different aims and theoretical backgrounds,
all take language as their focus of interest‘.
Some scholars, for example Widdowson (1973) have warned that distinguishing between text
and discourse would create problems and have advised that the so called distinctions between
‗discourse‘ and ‗text‘ is arbitrary and further avers that the distinctions would contradict the
known and well-established distinction between ‗sentence‘ and ‗utterance‘ in the literature.
In sum, text is a behavioral non-interactive event restricted to your experience with

understanding its characteristics and its meaning or information as its singular purpose.
Discourse, in any medium, is a social interactive event with many layers of communication and
many layers of purpose.

What do you understand by the term ‗discourse‘ and the term ‗text‘?
4.0 CONCLUSION
The continual paradigm shift from old methods of language use will always bring about a natural
shift in discourse phenomena. In recent times, discourse has come to assume more than just mere
utterances.
5.0 SUMMARY
In this unit we have looked at both traditional and some modern concepts in discourse analysis.
We defined text as anything containing meaningful not distorted words or letters that is
understandable and open for interpretation to the reader or critic; and can be subjected to
linguistic or literary analysis. We said that a text achieves texture if it functions as a unified
whole as a result of the mutual relationship between linguistic items. The fact that a text
functions as a unity with respect to its environment derives from this ‗texture‘. To achieve
texture in texts, two main concepts are used: cohesion and coherence. Discourse includes all the
supra-sentential structure of any stretch of language, spoken or written. We pointed out that
context is very important to the meaning of utterances; meaning of each word is derived as a
result of the surrounding linguistic items. This shows that discourse analyst has to take account
of the context in which a piece of discourse occurs to get the real meaning
6.0 TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT
1. Compare the political ideology of Nigeria with that of your state
2. Succinctly discuss the importance of context to the comprehension of discourse
3. Discuss legal power in the society and how it can also be hegemonic
4. Distinguish between cohesion and coherence
Baker.P and Ellec,S.(2011). Key Terms in Discourse Analysis. New York:continuum
Johnstone , B.(2008).Discourse analysis.(second edition),London :Blackwell publishing.
Brown and Yule (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis. 2nd ed., London, Bloomsbury academic
Reinhard Koselleck, (1995) Begriffgeschichte and Social History, in R.Koselleck, Futures Past:
On the Semantics of Historical Time, Cambridge, MIT Press, p.74.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards A Radical
Democratic Politics, New York, Verso, p.108.
van Dijk, T. A. (1972). Some aspects of text grammars. The Hague: Mouton.
Rudolf de Cilla, Martin Reisigl and Ruth Wodak, The Discursive Construction of National
Identities, in Discourse&Society vol. 10, 2, pp.149-73.
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English London: Longman

MODULE 2 TRADITIONAL DISCOURSE APPROACHES
UNIT 1: TEXT LINGUISTICS
Contents
8.0 Introduction
9.0 Unit Objectives
10.0 Main Content
3.1 What is text linguistics?
3.2 Textual communication
3.3 Textual communication and its regulative principles
4 Conclusion
5 Summary
6 Tutor-marked Assignment
7 References and Further Reading
1.0 Introduction
In the previous module you learnt what text and discourse are, and what constitute each.
We also pointed out that context is key to understanding the meaning of linguistic structure. For
a text or a piece of work to achieve texture, there must be unity in the linguistic items that make
up that text. Apart from the traditional concepts in the analysis of discourse, we also looked at
new concepts like power, ideology and hegemony. Here we are going to discuss some traditional
approaches to discourse. Specifically, we are going to further our discussion on ‗text‘ which was
begun on the previous module and link it up with ‗linguistics‘ and its accompanying subtopics.
You are expected to read up the works referenced at the end of this unit for a further
understanding of what the points raised here.
2.0 Unit Objectives

At the end of this unit you should:
 know what text linguistics is
 be familiar with textual communication

 be able to explain what textual communication and its regulative principles are
3.0 Main Content
3.1 What is text linguistics?
‘Text linguistics‘ constitute two words: ‗text‘ and ‗linguistics‘. Let us look at what ‗text‘ is
before looking collectively to what the two terms mean. When we talk, we choose and use words
in a way to ensure meaningful utterances. However, it is not the only the choices we make with
regard to syntactic complexity or certain vocabulary items, but also, how these things are linked
together that helps us to create a proper text that fits together in various aspects. In terms of the
fitting together of texts, we need to bear various features in mind that help us to establish its
coherence, that is, the impression that the whole text actually makes sense. We do not just string
words randomly and expect them to make sense, beginning from a single word, to a phrase then
to the sentence, paragraphs and the chapter.
For example, if Ada says ‗I cooked Egusi soup and went to the market to buy ingredients for
soup‘. This does not make sense and is not logical. It is expected that Ada should have gone to
the market, buy the ingredients for soup before cooking. So, the structure ‗I went to the market,
bought soup ingredients and cooked Egusi soup‘ is more logical and meaningful. It then means
that we need to pay attention to order to create coherent texts. The notion of ‗text‘ here
encompasses not only collection of written materials, but also spoken discourse, such as
monologues, dialogues, multilogues, speeches, sermons, etc.
Having got a gist of what ‗text‘ is, let us look at what ‗text linguistics‘ is. There are so many
ways to describe and explain what ‗text linguistics‘ is. Text linguistics is a branch of linguistics
that deals with texts as communication systems. Its original goal lays emphasis in uncovering
and describing text grammars. Text linguistics is a branch of Linguistics which studies the
peculiarities of text structure. It is concerned with larger units of speech, and investigates how
these larger units fit together and how sensible arguments or expositions are constructed by
employing specific linking devices.
Text linguistics is the study of text as an output that leads to the creation of something referred to
as a product (text grammar) or as a process (theory of text). Dolník and Bajzíková (1998) opine
that a text can be viewed from two perspectives: text as a product and text as a process. The text-
as-a-product perspective focuses on the text cohesion, text coherence, topical organization,
illocutionary structure and communicative functions. The text-as-a-process perspective studies
the text production, reception and interpretation in the previous module we said that a text
contains meaningful not distorted words or letters that is understandable and open for
interpretation to the reader or critic. Text can also be said to be as an instance of (spoken or
written) language use (an act of parole), a relatively self-contained unit of communication. As a
‗communicative occurrence‘ it meets several criteria of textuality (the constitutive principles of
textual communication): cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity,
situationality and intertextuality, and three regulative principles of textual communication:
efficiency, effectiveness and appropriateness (de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981, Malmjaer
1991). We shall explain these under 3.3 below.
In general, text linguistics covers a wide range of fields of investigation ranging from pragmatics
to discourse analysis, from socio-linguistics to cognitive sciences and others.
3.1.2 Self-Assessment Exercises

How does text differ from text linguistics?
3.2 Textual communication

A text surely should communicate ideas to the reader/receiver. Communication does not come
arbitrarily, but with some technical efforts by the text producer. Technical efforts come as a
result of using devices that will unite the various words used in a sentence. Uniting devices will
ensure cohesion in texts. Halliday and Hasan (1976) sees cohesion as the way in which linguistic
items of which texts are constituted are meaningfully interconnected in sequences. Coherent
structure can be expressed and progressed by structuring thoughts into words, phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs, headings, sub-headings, chapters to the full text books. Cohesion is a kind
of textual glue that helps us to join textual elements together, avoid repetition of the same words,
make reference to circumstances or events in a text, express the temporal/logical order of events,
etc. Cohesion can be achieved in texts through: reference, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical
organization. We shall explain these below:
3.2.1 Reference is used to describe the different ways in which entities such as things, people,
events are referred to within texts. There are range of linguistic features, which enables speakers
and writers to make such references, for example pronouns may refer to entities already
mentioned or about to be mentioned in speech or writing. Cohesion achieved through reference
can be realized by nouns, determiners, personal and demonstrative pronouns or adverbs. Either
points out of the text to a real world item, that is, to its signified, hence exophoric reference
which are deixical items (that and these), or refers to an item within the text, hence endophoric
reference.
Exophoric reference terms are used to describe a linguistic feature in a text, which refers to
something out side of that text. Examples are: ‗there‘, ‗here‘ and ‗that‘. Endophoric reference
terms are used to describe forms of reference made within any given text to other elements
within the text e. g in the following sentences: ‗He gave the oranges to Obiageli‘. She collected
them and left the class. ‗She‘ is an example of endophoric reference, referring to Obiageli.
The two possible directions of endophoric reference are: anaphoric (reference back) and
cataphoric (reference forward). Anaphoric can be direct or indirect. For example (direct
anaphora) I saw a lady down the corridor. She was wearing a flowered Ankara jacket.
Anaphoric: a definite referent is introduced and then later referred to by a pro-form, The
pronoun ‗she‘ points back to a lady. Indirect anaphora: what a beautiful house. The roofing
sheets are solid. Reference items can be a single word referring to a phrase as in the first
example, or a phrase referring to a phrase as in the second example. For cataphoric reference,
the reader encounters the reference or pronoun of someone or something before the name is
mentioned in a text or discourse. cataphoric: a pro-form introduces a referent without giving
any specific details about it; further specification only follows later on in the text, sometimes a
considerable distance away from the pro-form, Homophora is the situation where there is a
reference to an item of which there is only one instance. For example: Pour the water in the
bucket please. The relationship between two items in a sentence or an utterance in which both
refer to the same person or thing and one stands as a linguistic antecedent of the other is called
co-reference. In the example given above, ‗a lady‘ and ‗she‘ are co-referential.
3.2.2 Ellipsis is another cohesive device. It is the omission of sometimes single words or phrases
in writing or utterance. In writing and in actual speech, people make use of Ellipsis to avoid
unnecessary repetition of items. Though it is not all the time that ellipses are used to avoid
repetition, they are sometimes used to draw ones attention to an idea in a discourse.
Example:
Simple conversational between two friends:
Nneka: Jenny baby where have you been? I have been looking for you.
Jennifer: my dear the weather is so hot; I went to the supermarket to buy some ice cream to help
me cool off.
Nneka: Hmm you are really enjoying, imagine going all the way to the supermarket to buy just
ice cream. Anyway can I have some?
In the short discourse above, though Nneka did not complete the last sentence by not
mentioning ice cream, Jennifer knows that Nneka meant ‗can I have some ice-cream‘? This is
lexical ellipsis.
Another example:
Last week, my mother and I visited the old people‘s home, next week my sister and father will.
In the dependent clause, ‗visit the old people‘s home‘ has been ellipsed. You can see that unlike
the example above where a single word ice-cream was omitted, a group of words was omitted in
the second example.
3.2.3 Conjunction is another cohesive device in texts. It manifests through single words or
phrases and enhanced mostly by subjuncts, conjuncts, disjuncts, pronouns, metalingual
connectors, etc. they create intratextual and intertextual unity.
Conjunctions divided in to four categories: Additive, Adversative, Causal and Temporal
Additive means substance added to another; Adversative means contrary to expectations; Causal
relations are expressed by: ‗hence‘, ‗so‘, ‗thus‘, ‗therefore‘, all these regularly combine with
initial ‗and‘. Temporal conjunctive element is expressed in its simplest form using ‗then‘.
3.2.4 Lexical Cohesion
Lexical cohesion is the last means through which cohesion can be achieved in texts. It refers to
the ties created between lexical elements, such as words (e.g. dress), groups (e.g. the Ankara
dress), and phrases (e.g. the man). These lexical ties can occur over long passages of text or
discourse. According to Halliday the primary paradigmatic types of lexical cohesion (meaning
words of the same type or class) are repetition, synonymy, hyponymy, and meronymy.
Repetition can be achieved through using the same word over again in a discourse. E.g. the
words eat can be repeated in different forms in a text: ‗eater‘ (N), ‗eat‘, ‗eating‘ (V). Synonymy
using words that have almost the same meaning, E.g. buy—purchase, Antonyms: give—take,
come—go. Hyponymy is when one word represents ‗a class of thing and the second either a
super class or a subclass, or another class at the same level‘ (574) e.g. Car- Mercedes Benz,
Meronymy are words that refer to parts of a whole, E. g. Mercedez Benz—windscreen, booth,
bonnet etc.
Collocation is the way in which particular words tend to occur or belong together. For example,
‗beautiful lady‘ the adjective ‗beautiful‘ collocates with ‗lady‘, ‗girl‘ or even ‗woman‘. So, you
cannot say ‗beautiful man‘.
Self-assessment Exercise
3.2.5 What significant differences exist between the sense relations mentioned in this unit?
3.3 Textual Communication and its regulative principles
The principle of efficiency entails that simple and unambiguous words should be used in
communication. In other words, no matter how boring and unimpressive, a text should be
understood with minimal effort. The constitutive principles of textual communication are:
Cohesion: as mentioned above, this concerns the way in which the components of the surface
text, i.e. the actual words we hear or see, are mutually connected within a sequence. The
surface components depend upon each other according to grammatical forms and conventions,
such that cohesion rests upon grammatical dependencies. Intentionality: concerns the author or
text producer‘s attitude that the set of occurrences should constitute a cohesive and coherent
text instrumental in fulfilling the producer‘s intentions, e.g. to share knowledge, entertain, warn
etc. Acceptability concerns the audience or text receiver‘s attitude that the set of occurrences
should constitute a cohesive and coherent message having some usefulness or relevance for the
receiver, e.g. to acquire knowledge, gain amusement etc. Informativity: this concerns the extent
to which the occurrences of the presented text are expected vs. unexpected or known vs.
unknown/certain. Situationality: concerns the factors which make a text relevant to a situation
of occurrence. Intertexuality: this refers to the way in which uses of texts depend on the
knowledge of other (preceding or following) texts.
The concepts of efficiency, effectiveness and appropriateness are regulative criteria of textuality.
These three principles control communication. Efficiency: Text used to communicate with a
minimum expenditure of effort by the participants. Effectiveness refers to text creating favorable
conditions for attaining the sender‘s goal. Appropriateness refers to the suitability of the text to
the communicative situation in which it is used.

Explain the three regulative principles of textual communication
4. Conclusion
It is very important to make sure that there is unity in the various elements in a speech or in
writing. When meanings are not logically linked in texts, there will be difficulty for the real
meaning of that text to be received.
5. Summary
In this unit you have learnt that text linguistics is the study of text as an output that leads to
the creation of something referred to as a product (text grammar) or as a process (theory of
text). You also learnt that textual communication is achieved through cohesive devices.
6. Tutor-marked Assignment
Succinctly discuss conjunctive cohesive device and their function in an utterance or a piece
of writing
7. References and Further Reading
De Beaugrande, R.A. & W.U. Dressler 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London:
Longman.
Dolnik, J and E. Bajzikova (1998) Textova lingvistika.Bratislava.
Halliday, M. & Hasan, R. (1985). Cohesion in English. London: Longman..
Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. 1985. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a
Social-semiotic Perspective. Deakin University Press
Van Dijk, T. 2009. Society and Discourse: How Social Contexts Control Text and Talk.
Cambridge: CUP.
UNIT 2: ETHNOMETHODOLOGY
Contents
11.0 Introduction
12.0 Unit Objectives
13.0 Main Content
3.1 What is ethnomethodology?
7.2 Central ideas in ethnomethodology
8 Conclusion
9 Summary
1.0 Introduction
This section of the course material looks at ethnomethodology and some key theorist of the
approach. It attempts to define ethnomethodology by presenting an overview of the field. It looks
at different definitions that had been propounded over time in the field as well as traces its
history. The views and contributions of some key theorist are also explained.
2.0 Unit objectives

By the end of this unit you should be able to:
Elaborately explain what ethnomethodology is
Give a brief history of ethnomethodology
State the contribution of at least two key theorists of ethnomethodology
3.0 Main content
3.1 What is Ethnomethodology?
Ethnomethodology emerged as a distinctive perspective within sociology during the 1960s. It is

associated and often confused with a variety of perspectives (existential sociology, creative
sociology, reflexive sociology, interactionism, and most recently constructionism). Although the
primary focus of ethnomethodology differs from that of phenomenology, both are centered on
describing the emergence of order out of the shared experience of members of particular
societies (Zimmerman and Wieder, 1970, 286-290). This focus on order as a practical
accomplishment of the everyday interactions of members of a group produces
Ethnomethodology a sociological approach emerged out of the breakdown of the orthodox

consensus in the mid-1960s. The label was coined by the American sociologist Harold Garfinkel,
who laid the foundations of ethnomethodology as a theory, and as a self-conscious critique of all
conventional sociology. Explaining the origins of the term, Garfinkel suggests that ‗―ethno‖
seemed to refer, somehow or other, to the availability to a member of common-sense knowledge
of his society as common-sense knowledge of the ―whatever‖; the notion of ―ethnomethodology‖
was taken in this sense‘. This interest and view led Garfinkel to analyse, in great detail, the
methods people use every day in life and interaction to account for (or make sense of) their
activities—both to themselves and others. These unconventional or ‗esoteric‘ researches
according to some are reported by Garfinkel in his 1967 studies, where Garfinkel gives the most
concise definition of his studies and researches, as being ‗directed to the tasks of learning how
members‘ actual, ordinary activities consist of methods to make practical actions, practical
circumstances, commonsense knowledge of social structures, and practical sociological
reasoning analysable'.
Garfinkel's researches and postulations in ethnomethodology was the subject of fierce and often
bitter debate within sociology. Although some of its insights have been taken into the centre of
sociological theory, particularly through the work of Anthony Giddens, it has now settled into an
accepted but smaller preoccupation. Ethnomethodology draws on a varied philosophical
background: phenomenology on the one hand and Wittgenstein and linguistic philosophy on the
other. Together with much post-structural and post-modernist work, it is a sociological
representative of what has become known as the ‗linguistic turn‘ in philosophy, an increasing
preoccupation in twentieth-century philosophy with the nature of language and language use.
Social life, and the apparently stable phenomena and relationships in which it exists, are seen by
ethnomethodologists as a constant achievement through the use of language. It is something that
together we create and recreate continuously. This is indeed the rationale behind the name:
‗ology‘ (the study of) ‗ethno‘ (people's) ‗method‘ (methods) of creating social order. The
emphasis is on doing things: we ‗do‘ friendship, being a sociologist, walking along the street,
and everything else.
Garfinkel understood ethnomethodology as a distinct approach to sociological inquiry, one that

painstakingly analyzes and describes the various methods by which members of a social group
maintain the orderliness and sensibility of their everyday worlds. Unlike approaches that took the
objectivity of social facts as given, Garfinkel took it as his job to understand how this seemingly
objective reality was constantly being produced, managed, and negotiated in the everyday
activities and routines of ordinary people. A guiding principle of ethnomethodology was to not
bring pre-existing understandings of what constitutes social reality to the setting under study—
neither social structures, nor the objectified institutions of social constructionists, not even the
―significant symbols‖ of symbolic interactionists. Rather, the idea is to let members‘ own
methods of establishing social reality speak for themselves.
3.1.2 Self-assessment Exercise
What is ethnomethodology?
3.2 Central ideas in ethnomethodology
Indexicality and reflexivity are the two central ideas in ethnomethodology. Indexicality is the
insight that there is no such thing as a clear, extensive definition of any word or concept in a
language, since meaning comes from reference to other words and to the context in which the
words are spoken. For example: It is possible for an interlocutor ‗A‘ to ask a co-interlocutor ‗B‘
‗What do you mean‘ about an utterance, and then goes on indefinitely, asking the same question
‗What do you mean‘ to whatever answer ‗B‘ gives. To this endless repetition of ‗What do you
mean‘, there is no final answer. Much of Garfinkel's early work consisted of sending his students
out on exercises which establish the fact that humans create and maintain a sense of meaning and
existence in social life which is not actually there. One such exercise was to ask people ‗What do
you mean?‘ relentlessly during conversations. The result is that people become frustrated,
distressed and angry when the taken-for-granted rules and common ground knowledge which
interlocutors use for establishing meaning are undermined. They lose their sense of social reality
and may not want to continue the discussion further. Endless repetition of ‗What do you mean‘
in conversation according to Garfinkel is glossing.
Reflexivity refers to the fact that our sense of order is a as result of conversational processes
which is created in talk. Yet, we usually think of ourselves as describing the order already
existing around us. For ethnomethodologists, to describe a situation is at the same time to create
it.
The ideas of Indexicality and reflexivity formed part of a radical critique of all conventional
sociology—which explains the bitterness of some of the arguments that ensued. According to
ethnomethodologists, conventional sociologists are constructing a sense of social order in the
same way as a layperson: namely, meanings are regarded as substantive and unproblematic.
Consequently they are taken for granted. By contrast, ethnomethodologists argue that the proper
task of sociology is to sort out the interpretive rules by means of which we establish our sense of
order, rather than engage in reflexively establishing that sense. In this way, conventional
sociology becomes an object of study for ethnomethodology, in the same way as any other
human social activity is an object of study. Thus, Garfinkel's book contains both an essay on
coding answers to sociological interviews and an essay on trans-sexuality, the activities sharing
an equal status as ways of producing social reality.
The example of ‗glossing‘ in the lens of ethnomethodologists illustrates the kind of interpretive
procedure in which ethnomethodology is interested; in everyday life, glossing means avoiding
the issue. For ethnomethodologists, all talk is glossing, since the issue cannot be directly stated.
In glossing, people employ a range of taken-for-granted rules, such as the ‗etcetera rule‘, which
adds to every other rule a clause which says ‗except in reasonable circumstances‘.
Ethnomethodology has often being criticized as not saying anything very important. The real
political and social issues in societies are beyond its scope, since the concern is with how we
constitute this world, rather than what we constitute it as being. It is argued that the rules it draws
out are also comparatively low level and merely tell us what we already know. Although
ethnomethodological work continues, it is neither as prominent, nor as controversial as hitherto.
On the other hand, a modified version of some of its insights is now almost taken-for-granted:
there is, for example, a much wider recognition among sociologists of the problematic nature of
meaning and of the way in which our talk does contribute to the creation of our social reality.
Meanwhile, ethnomethodology has become a relatively prosperous alternative discipline, with its
own conferences, journals, and centres of excellence.
Aaron Cicourel among ethnomethodologist has been most concerned with establishing a
relationship with conventional sociology. He stops short of seeing social reality and societies as
constructions of talk, but recognizes that taken-for-granted rules of talk and action are
fundamental to social order, and employs a notion of rule similar to that of ethnomethodology as
a way of understanding both social action and social structure and bringing the two together.
Explain Indexicality and reflexivity
4 Conclusion
Though ethnomethodology has been criticised for not saying anything important, it is one of the
earliest approaches to the study of what social interaction does; and also, it is an approach that
what people do without taking into the consideration the contextual factors.
5 Summary
In this unit, we have looked at ethnomethodology as a sociological concept and a traditional
method of textual analysis. We saw that ethnomethodological approach to discourse analysis
focuses and describes various methods by which members of a social group sustain the
uniformity and awareness of their everyday lives.
What is the relationship between Ethnomethodology and phenomenology?
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology, Prentice-Hall.
Hammersley, Martyn. (2018) The Radicalism of Ethnomethodology, Manchester, Manchester

University Press.
Liberman, Ken (2014). More Studies in Ethnomethodology", SUNY Press.
Lynch, Michael & Wes Sharrock. (2011). Ethnomethodology, 4 Volumes, Sage, 2011. Sage
"Research" series. Compendium of theoretical papers, ethnomethodological studies, and
discussions.
Maynard, Douglas and Kardash, Teddy (2007) 'Ethnomethodology'. pp. 1483–1486 in G. Ritzer
(ed.) Encyclopedia of Sociology. Boston: Blackwell.
Psathas, George. (1995). "Talk and Social Structure", and, "Studies of Work", Human Studies
18: 139–155. Typology of ethnomethodological studies of social practices.
vom Lehn, Dirk. (2014). Harold Garfinkel: The Creation and Development of
Ethnomethodology, Left Coast Press.
http://www/encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/dictionaries-theusaruses-pictures-and-press-
releases/everyday-life-sociologies
http://www/encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/dictionaries-theusaruses-pictures-and-press-
releases/coversation-analysis
MODULE TWO: TRADITIONAL DISCOURSE ANALYTICAL APPROACHES
Unit 3: Conversation Analysis
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 What is Conversation Analysis?
3.1 Turn taking
3.2 Turn Design
3.4 Adjacency Pairs and Sequence Organisation
3.6 Error and Repair Mechanisms
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
In this unit, we shall be discussing an interesting approach to discourse analysis which is

Conversation Analysis (CA). We consider CA interesting because it focuses primarily on the
study of talk-in-interaction which is an integral aspect of our everyday social life. Indeed, as
humans in society, we engage in talk to persuade, argue, plead, commiserate, and joke among
others. In fact, one wonders what human society would look like, if people could not or did not
talk. In this unit therefore, we shall be discussing topics such as how people take turns in
conversation, cooperation in turn taking, adjacency pairs, sequence insertion, error and repair
mechanisms and so on.
2.0 Objectives
At the end of the unit, we should be able to:
 Define Conversation Analysis

 Explain foundations of Conversation Analysis
 Explain how speakers take turns in conversation
 Describe sequence organisation
 Explain errors and repair mechanisms
MAIN CONTENT
3.0 What is Conversation Analysis (CA)?
Conversation Analysis (henceforth CA) focuses primarily on talk. Hutchby and Wooffit
(2002:13) define CA as ‗The systematic analysis of the talk produced in everyday situations of
human interaction‘. It is a method applied for investigating the structure and process of social
interaction between humans. In other words, CA is concerned mainly with recorded, dialogic,
spoken discourse of a fairly informal or everyday character. It is also interested in the study of
the role of talk in wider processes. That is why other forms of talk such as interviews in work or
media settings, medical consultations, court room interaction, classroom talk, and other forms of
institutional talk are also areas which have attracted conversation analysts‘ research interests
(Gardner, 2008).
This is why the more general characterization ‗talk in interaction‘ is often preferred over
‗conversation‘ nowadays since research in this field is no longer limited to the study of
conversations. Researchers in this field are concerned with the study of the methods which
speakers/participants adopt when they organize social action through talk. They try to investigate
the kinds of social organisations which people use as resources when they communicate. In other
words, CA analysts work with the assumption that talk is not simply the product of two speaker-
hearer‘s attempt at exchanging information but involves mutual collaboration aimed at achieving
meaningful communication (Hutchby and Wooffit, 2002). CA studies rules and practices from an
interactional perspective by examining recordings of real-life recordings. It investigates and
explains the underlying organized procedures which inform the production of naturally occurring
talk.
Briefly explain what you think is meant by Conversation Analysis
3.1 Foundations of Conversation Analysis (CA)

Conversation Analysis (CA) originated from the seminal lectures delivered by Harvey Sacks in
the sociology department of the University of California between 1964 and 1972. CA is
historically linked to ethnomethodology. Ethnomethodology had its roots in the late 1940s and
1950s with Harold Garfinkel, a sociologist who started by studying jury deliberations in the
USA. He found that mainstream sociology of the day did not help him much in his enquiry
because access to social reality was denied the ‗ordinary‘ person and rather given to the scientist
through a belief that social scientific method was superior to ordinary, everyday common sense.
He therefore sought to investigate how the ordinary person interactively and reflexively achieves
an understanding of everyday practical life, its ‗policies, methods, risks, procedures and
strategies‘ in order to explain ‗the rule governed activities of everyday life‘. Another important
figure who influenced Sacks was Erving Goffman who was perhaps the first major social
scientist to look closely at people‘s interaction and order of face-to-face communication
(Wooffitt, 2005). Sacks had been examining a corpus of recorded telephone calls to the Los
Angeles Suicide Prevention Centre in order to investigate the hospital staff‘s challenge of getting
callers to reveal their names. Along the line however, he became interested in examining callers‘
utterances in order to find out what those utterances were doing rather than treating them as
communication problems. CA begins from the notion that conversational interaction involves
‗doing things with words‘ such as describing, questioning, offering, agreeing, and so on.
Investigations in CA involve making an audio and/or video recording of naturally occurring talk.
These recordings are carefully transcribed so as to capture details.
Although the foundational work in CA focuses on talk in conversations, the framework has
gradually been extended to study many more specialized forms of communication including
interaction in educational, medical, clinical, legal, political, and mass media settings. In addition,
analysis in CA may be subsumed in typically linguistic disciplines such as Pragmatics, Discourse
Analysis or Interactional Sociolinguistics. This is why the more general characterization ‗talk in
interaction‘ nowadays is often preferred over ‗conversation‘. Key questions for conversation
analysts are:
 How do people take turns in conversation?
 How do people open and close conversation?
 How do people launch new topics, close old ones, shift topic, etc.?
 How is it that conversation generally progresses satisfactorily from one utterance to the
next?
3.2 Turn Taking

As a member of society and having engaged in talks since childhood, you must have noticed that
people usually display some form of order in the way and manner they interact. When talking,
people do not all talk at the same time. Rather, they talk and allow others to also talk. Turn-
taking is an aspect that is central to the study of conversations. In conversation analysis, turns are
the individual speaker basic unit of speech or conversation. Schmitt (2010: 58) describes a turn
as ‗each occasion that a speaker speaks‘. He further notes that a turn ends when another speaker
takes a turn. A graphic description of turn taking could then be described as Participant A talks,
stops and Participant B starts, stops and so on. From these we can obtain an A-B-A-B-A
distribution of talk across two participants (Levinson, 1983). For example:
James: Good morning!
Carol: Oh hi. How was your weekend?
James: Not too bad
Carol: I didn‘t get to do too much. Just a little shopping close to the house
James: It‘s ok. We all need to rest more
Carol: See you later then
James: Yeah, later
Sometimes the number of participants could vary beyond two speakers but even then the
mechanism that governs turn-taking is capable of operating in these varying circumstances.
However, it must quickly be pointed out that there are exceptions to the one-at-a-time rule of
turn taking. These are reflected sometimes in ‗choral‘ occasions such as greeting in unison,
people laughing in response to a joke, instances when people simply choose to talk at the same
time and so on. Nevertheless, the one speaker talking at a time is the more common situation in
interaction. Conversation analysts are interested in how speakers achieve turn taking and what
the rules are for who speaks and when they speak. These rules according to Sacks, Schegloff and
Jefferson (cited in Levinson, 1983: 297) are ordered options which operate on a ‗turn-by-turn‘
basis and could thus be termed as a local management system. It is locally managed since it
organizes only current and next turn and not for example, what will happen in thirty minutes or
an hour. In addition, it is party managed since interlocutors work out who should speak next by
themselves rather than depending on a third party to coordinate their conversation.
Again, you need to note that there are exceptional cases such as formal debates and classroom
discourse where for instance, the teacher selects who speaks next and for how long. Generally
however, turn taking rules operate like a sharing device over speakers‘ control of the floor.
Sharing of the control of the floor includes an allocation of units of the conversation to different
speakers. These minimal allocations are known as Turn-Constructional Units (TCUs), which
consist of linguistic units (words, phrases, clauses, etc.) that form a recognizably complete
utterance in a given context. The end of such a unit constitutes a point at which speakers may
change – a Transition-Relevance Place (TRP). Note the use of the modal ‗may‘ because it is not
all the time that speaker transition necessarily occur at this point but it is, that transition to a next
speaker becomes possibly relevant at this point.
At a TRP, conversationalists use specific techniques to allocate next turn. If current speaker
selects another participant as next speaker before her turn has arrived at its first possible
completion point (other selection), the selected party has both the right and the obligation to
begin the next turn at this point. If no other speaker is selected, another participant may self-
select as next speaker. If none of the options is used, current speaker may continue. The system
then applies again as soon as current speaker arrives at the next possible completion point. The
turn-taking organization thus provides for the orderly distribution of turns-at-talk for
conversation. You should however note, though, that hearers do not always wait to find points of
current speaker‘s completion of a turn. Sometimes, they also anticipate and project them before
they actually occur. In the conversation below, you notice that Bala starts an initial next turn at
the first and second point of possible completion not because there was any silence from
Maurine but by virtue of the fact that he projected a possible completion of the turn
constructional unit which is a potential transition relevance place.
Bala: Did you visit any beach in Lagos last year?

Maurine: Oh, yes, Tarkwa Bay
Ade: Oh, that‘s a nice one
Bala: Tar…Tarkwa
Bala: Tarkwa Bay. I was there two years ago.
Critically assess turn-taking as a speaker‘s basic unit of conversation
3.3 Sequence Organisation

In the last section, we described that nature of turn-taking. We realized that to ensure order in
conversation, each speaker must talk for a while and allow others to also speak. Now, we want to
consider how each of these turns is linked to one another to ensure a well-coordinated
conversation. Schegloff (2007) explains that one of the most fundamental organisations of
practice for talk-in-interaction is the organization of turn taking, known as sequence
organization. Sequence organization refers to the ways conversationalists link turns to each other
as a coherent series of interrelated communicative actions. In addition, a sequence is an ordered
series of turns through which participants accomplish and coordinate an interactional activity.
Unlike linguistics and psychology which pay attention to the composition of singular utterance in
the forms of phrase or sentence, CA sees the positioning of an utterance in the ongoing
conversation as important to the understanding of its meaning. Schegloff explains that the
organization of turns is best examined with respect to action rather than topicality. In other
words, turn taking should be examined for what they are doing rather than what they are about.
For example the utterance: Would somebody like some more beans and yam, in the extract below
is better understood as ‗doing an offer‘ than as talking ‗about beans and yam‘ as can be seen in
the response to it.
Mum: Whao, there’s so much food left….. Would somebody like some more beans and yam?
Tade: Hmmm… I’ll take some beans.
The adjacency pair is the basis or the basic pattern of sequence organization. Adjacency pair is
one of the few kernel forms of organization through which actions and courses of action get
organized in talk in interaction. Indeed, Levinson (2010) suggests that adjacency pairs are a
fundamental unit of conversation organization. They are paired utterances consisting of two
turns/ actions, produced by different participants. Adjacency pairs consist of two parts – a First
Pair Part (FPP), followed in next position by a type-matched Second Pair Part (SPP), which, if it
is not produced, would be ‗noticeably absent‘. Indeed, adjacency pairs reflect the idea that when
a social actor performs a particular action, s/he imposes a normative obligation on co-
interlocutors to respond by giving an appropriate action at the first possible opportunity.
Examples of adjacency pairs include greeting-greeting, question-answer, invitation/
acceptance/declination, complaint-account, and so on. The property that unites FPPs and SPPs is
called conditional relevance because the relevance of the second action is dependent upon the
production of the first. Multiple adjacency pairs can be strung together to form complex courses
of action by processes of sequence expansion. Schegloff and Sacks (1973, cited in Stivers, 2013:
192) categorize adjacency pairs along the following lines:
Adjacency pairs are sequences of two utterances that are:

(i) Adjacent
(ii) Produced by different speakers
(iii) Relatively ordered, so that a particular first part requires a particular second (or range
of second parts) – e.g. offers require acceptance or rejections, greetings require
greetings and so on.
(iv) Pair-type related such that particular first-pair parts are paired with particular second-
pair parts (for example, greeting with greeting, not greeting with acceptance, farewell
with farewell, not farewell with denial)
And there is a rule governing the use of adjacency pairs, namely:
(v) Having produced a first part of some pair, current speaker must stop speaking, and
next speaker must produce at that point a second part to the same pair.
So far the discussion on adjacency pairs has focused on the obvious – that is the surface level of
pairing in interactional organization. There could however be some constraints on pairing which
could lead to the expansion of adjacency pair structure. A pre-expansion could precede an
adjacency pair in form of pre-telling, pre-invitation, etc. What they all have in common is that
they are usually heard as actions that are leading to something. An insertion expansion could
occur in which case they feature as actions intervening between the first part (initiation) and the
second (response) part of the pair. Insert expansion could take two main forms – as addressing
some issue with the base initiating action or as preliminary or conditional to a response. A post-
expansion involves a further expansion of an action sequence that has reached possible
completion. This could be minimal or non-minimal forms of post-expansion. The minimal form
offers a reaction to the second-position response via tokens such as oh, great, splendid, etc.
These reactions do not in themselves initiate new sequences. Minimal expansion is produced by
the speaker if the initiating action indicates that their action was adequate. When adjacency pairs
proceed smoothly, for example, a greeting gets a greeting in return, a congratulations gets a
thank you in return, we say these are examples of ‗preferred sequences‘. But consider this
example:
A: How are you Bola?

B: Where have you been?
A: Are you alright?
B: Don‘t talk to me
This example would be perceived as a ‗dispreferred sequence‘. It should be noted that the idea of
preference is not a psychological one in the sense that it does not refer to speakers‘ or hearers‘
individual preferences. Rather, it is a structural notion that corresponds closely to the linguistic
concept of markedness. In this regard, preferred second parts occur as structurally simpler turns
while dispreferred seconds are marked by various kinds of structural complexity. Dispreferred
second parts are typically delivered after some significant delay, with some preface marking their
dispreferred status and with some account of why the preferred second cannot be performed.
This complexity in dispreferred seconds occur because of speaker‘s effort at making the
sequence as less damaging to the participants‘ face or personal self-worth as possible.
1. Attempt a definition of adjacency pairs
2. What features of sequence organization do you consider important in the analysis of any
conversation?
3.4 Turn Design
One other area which conversation analysts focus on is turn design. A turn design refers to how
speakers format their turns to implement some action, in some position, for some recipient(s). In
other words, turn design is concerned with the way in which a turn at talk or a turn constructional
unit is put together by speakers to ‗do something‘ (Drew, 2013:131). A basic assumption in CA
is that participants use talk and other conducts to produce recognizable actions, often employing
particular grammatical formats as resources to do so (Levinson, 2013). Thus, there is a
connection between what a speaker is doing in a current turn at talk and what another speaker did
in a prior turn, and it goes on and on. The focus on turn design can be traced to West Coast
functionalists in the USA who look at how people construct utterances in real time, and in
particular way in which they use regular, patterned, grammatical schemas under the constraints
of having to talk in interaction. The research agenda on turn design is usually aimed at
demonstrating how certain constructions are chosen to achieve particular actions and how these
choices are influenced in part by local interactional contingencies. For example, to make an
offer, speakers can design their turn as a conditional (if your husband would like their address,
my husband would gladly give it to him), declarative (I’ll take her on Sunday), or interrogative
(do you want me to bring the chairs?), each of which systematically occurs in particular
sequential positions (Curl, 2006).
3.5 Error and Repair Mechanisms
Repair is a generic term used in Conversation Analysis to refer to either errors in turn taking or
substantive faults in the contents of what a speaker has said (Hutchby & Wooffit, 1998). Repair
practices address troubles in speaking, hearing, and understanding. Schegloff (cited in Rabab‘ah,
2013) notes that in addition to linguistic problems (pronunciation, vocabulary, syntax, etc.),
repair may also relate to acceptability problems such as saying something wrong in a broad
sense, that is untrue, inappropriate or irrelevant. The segment of talk to which the repair is
addressed is called the trouble source or the repairable. The trouble source is the utterance or part
of an utterance that is perceived as problematic to at least one of the interlocutors. Drew (1997)
submits that self-repair is also a mechanism of remedying mistakes in conversation. Four
varieties of repair have been identified namely: self-initiated self-repair, other-initiated self-
repair, self-initiated other repair and other-initiated other-repair.
A repair procedure includes three basic components: trouble source (e.g. an unfamiliar word),
repair initiation (i.e. a signal that begins a repair procedure), and repair solution (e.g. a rephrasing
of the unfamiliar word). Either the speaker of the trouble source (self) or its recipient (other) can
initiate a repair procedure and/ or produce a repair solution. Self-initiated self-repair which is the
most common repair strategy (for example, ‗So he came on Saturday- uh Friday’), takes the
form of initiation with a non-lexical initiator, followed by the repairing segment. These non-
lexical initiators include cut offs, lengthening of sounds and quasi-lexical fillers such as uh and
um. In order to repair their errors in problematic talk, language users repeat words and use fillers
to gain time and achieve their communicative goals. Schegloff (cited in Gardner, 2008) states
that self-initiated and self-completed repair (self-initiated self-repair) occurs when the
interlocutor who is responsible for the trouble source both initiates and completes the repair. In
other words, the speaker of the trouble source initiates and executes the repair procedure
independently. Other-initiated self-repair strategy takes the form of the recipient of the trouble
source initiating the procedure by indicating difficulty with an utterance and then the speaker
produces the solution. For example,
A: So he came on Saturday.
B: Saturday?
A: Friday.
In this case, the initiation of repair takes place in the turn subsequent to the turn in which the
trouble occurs. For self-initiated other-repair, the speaker of a trouble source may depend on the
recipient to repair the trouble. For example,
A: The manager, Mr Aderibigbe is from Oshogbo, er Ife

B: hmmm, Ife
A: er…Oshogbo.
In other-initiated other-repair, the recipient of a trouble source initiates and carries out the repair.
This is closest to the notion of ‗correction‘ in the conventional sense. For example,
A: His child is in college now

B: Child?
A: Son, sorry
4.0 Conclusion
Talk is part of everyday human lives. Its integral role in the smooth running of society has
motivated copious research in the areas bordering on the question of how human talk is
organized in interactions. Studies on conversational analysis have revealed that talk is not just an
engagement in exchange of information but a collaboration among interlocutors aimed at
achieving meaningful communication. The different aspects of conversation analysis examined
establish the fact that talk-in-interaction is systematic rather mere random use of words in
communicative exchange.
5.0 Summary
In this unit, attention was paid to the definitions of Conversation Analysis and the foundations of
this area of language study. In addition, we examined different elements of Conversation
analysis such as turn taking, sequence organisation, turn design and error and repair mechanism.
There is no doubt that CA research offer opportunities to gain deeper insight to the ways
interactants organise conversation in order to engage in meaningful interactions.
1. Why is turn-taking important in conversation analysis?

2. Why is error and repair mechanism important in talk?

Hutchby, I. Wooffit, R. (2002). Conversation Analysis: Principles,
Practices and Applications. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The Handbook of Conversation
Analysis, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Woffit, R. (2005). Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A
Comparative and Critical Introduction. London: Sage.
Unit 4: Classroom Discourse Analysis
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 What is Classroom Discourse Analysis?
3.1 Birmingham Model of Classroom Discourse Analysis

3.1.1 Lesson
3.1.2 Transaction
3.1.3 Exchange
3.1.4 Move
3.1.5 Classes of Acts
4.0 Other Perspectives on Classroom Discourse Analysis Research

5.0 Conclusion
6.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
From your experience as a student right from the nursery/ primary school level, you must have
observed that a lot of activities and interactions take place in the classroom. Well, as a child you
may have even assumed that the classroom was a place to gather and play with your friends.
Today, as a more mature student you must have realized that your teacher has a need – that is the
need to communicate with you and your classmates. Indeed, the students also have the need to
communicate with the teacher so that effective teaching and learning can actually take place. Just
like in the restaurant or eatery, spoken language is used in the classroom for communication.
However, the nature of classroom communication differs from these other settings in some ways.
Whereas it may be acceptable for people to speak simultaneously in a restaurant for example,
classroom interaction is a structured activity. In fact, traditionally the teacher controls the
interaction at least while the class is officially in session.
However, in recent years, there have been growing advocacy for more learner-centered approach
to classroom interactions in which learning is more collaborative and the teacher moderates and
facilitates activities in the classroom. Perhaps, because of the centrality of the classroom (either
physical or virtual) to the acquisition of knowledge and of course the unique characteristics of
classroom discourse as a communication system, researchers have paid attention to this field for
many years. In the early 1970s, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) carried out an influential study on
classroom discourse by tape recording British primary school lessons. Their goal was to
understand the nature of discourse through the study of classroom communication. Their
structural description of the discourse found in the classroom is popularly referred to as the
Birmingham model or Initiation, Response and Follow up (IRF). Since their study of classroom
discourse in 1975, this field has evolved and expanded to focus on other aspects of classroom
discourse. In this unit, we shall attempt to explain classroom discourse and classroom discourse
analysis, the Sinclair and Coulthard structural description of traditional, teacher-fronted classes
which involves the explanation of discourse terms such as lesson, transaction, exchange, move
and acts. We shall also briefly discuss current interactional and critical approaches to classroom
discourse analysis.
2.0 Objectives
By the end of this Unit, you should be able to do the following:

 Define Classroom discourse Analysis
 Define the terms used in Classroom Discourse Analysis
 Discuss interactional and critical perspectives to classroom discourse analysis
MAIN CONTENT
3.0 What is Classroom Discourse Analysis?
Teacher: Look up everyone… I’ve got something here. What is it?
Pupil: A broom
Teacher: Yes, you are right. What do we use a broom for?
Pupils: To sweep!!!
Teacher: Yes you are right but I don’t want chorus answers…Can we use a
broom to brush? Raise your hand if you know the answer…
The conversation in the box above is an example of a typical traditional classroom interaction.
Generally, classroom discourse refers to the type of discourse that occurs between teacher and
students and among students in the classroom context. Classroom discourse analysis therefore
focuses on describing certain verbal behaviours of teachers and students as they interact in the
classroom. This is important because the social roles of teachers and students and the activities
they perform influence the form and function of classroom discourse. Thus, the use of language
in the classroom is often different from other types of discourses used in other contexts. The
educational context defines who gives information, asks for information, gives advice, threaten
and so on. Language is used in the classroom largely in the form of explanations, instructions,
descriptions and arguments (Rezaie and Lashkarian, 2015). Researchers in classroom discourse
analysis have attempted to identify typical classroom speech events and participation structures,
investigate the nature of teacher talk, indicate the effects of different types of communication
patterns used in the classroom on learning and examine the influence of cultural factors on the
character of classroom interaction.
As earlier mentioned, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) tape recorded British mother tongue classes
comprising 10-year-old and 11-year-old children in order to prove that when the discourse is
analyzed after the event, there is more order and form in it than might at first be apparent. The
goal of the research was to describe both the structure of one form of spoken discourse, that is,
the way in which units above the rank of classes are related and patterned and the way that
language functions such as statement, question and command are realized through grammatical
structure and positioned in the discourse. The data gathered from the recorded lessons therefore
served as a basis for their rank scale model which will be discussed in the section below
Self-Assessment
In your own words, explain what you understand by Classroom Discourse Analysis
3.1 Birmingham Model of Classroom Discourse Analysis
The Birmingham model, otherwise known as Initiation, Response and Follow up (IRF) was
developed by Sinclair and Coulthard in 1975. They had discovered from their study of primary
school pupils in mother tongue classes that language in the classroom followed a rigid sequence
and that speaking patterns were highly structured. In creating a structural description of
classroom discourse, they found that speech acts found in the classroom could be defined
according to their functions and categorised. Their classroom discourse model was created after a
rank scale structure developed by Michael Halliday (Eggins, 2004)) to show a hierarchical
ordering of grammatical units such that a unit of a given rank normally consists of units of the
next lower rank. Sinclair and Coulthard perceived discourse to be a separate category of analysis
from grammar and phonology and therefore developed a rank scale model to analyse discourse in
classroom. Each rank scale unit consists of one or more units below it. It is therefore a bottom-
to-top system, which means within a level the model moves from the lowest possible rank to the
highest. The rank scale has a lesson as the largest unit of the highest rank. The lesson is followed
by a transaction which is also followed by a move and finally by an act as the smallest unit at the
bottom of the scale hierarchy. Sinclair and Coulthard however noted that there is no one to one
correspondence between levels; but they apparently overlap at some points. The rank scale
components can be represented as follows:
Lesson
Transaction
Exchange
Move
Act
Table 1: The rank scale by Sinclair and Coulthard (1992: 5)
3.1.1 Lesson
The highest rank in Sinclair and Coulthard‘s model is the lesson. It refers to the sum of a
teacher‘s presentational plans which includes all that happens in the classroom from the time s/he
enters until they depart. These include pupils‘ responses to the teacher‘s instructions and the
ability of the teacher to respond to the pupils‘ responses. Lesson therefore encompasses teacher‘s
actions which are often pre-planned and students‘ responses which are often elicited by the
teacher through questions, instructions, arguments and so on. In traditional teacher controlled
classroom environment, the teacher determines to a large extent the way the discourse of a lesson
would go.
3.1.2 Transaction
Transaction is next to lesson. It refers to the basic unit of interaction. It is a sequence of

exchanges deployed to perform some tasks in the classroom. It is therefore the minimal
contribution made by the participants in a classroom discourse. Every transaction has an
opening, which is usually a greeting and it possibly closes with a greeting as well. There is
usually a frame or boundary marker to indicate that a new transaction is about to begin such as
‗okay‘, ‗now‘, ‗good‘, ‗right‘ and so on.
3.1.3 Exchange
An exchange is the whole dialogue between the teacher and the pupils. According to Sinclair and
Coulthard (1992: 3), ―a typical exchange in the classroom consists of an initiation by the teacher,
followed by a response from the pupil, followed by feedback to the pupil‘s response to the
teacher‖. There are two classes of exchanges; boundary exchanges and teaching exchanges.
Boundary exchanges signal the transition from one section of the lesson to the next and are
initiated by the teacher, whereas teaching exchanges are where questions are asked and answered
and feedback given on answers. The purpose of boundary exchanges is to divide and mark the
lesson stages by means of two types of moves – framing and focusing. Framing moves indicate
boundaries in the lesson and focusing moves are ‗meta statements about the discourse‘, that is
they signal the transition from one stage of the lesson to the next and provide information about
the different stages of the lesson respectively. The three principal teaching exchanges are
informing, directing and eliciting exchanges. Under the teaching exchanges the informing moves
take place when the teacher needs to tell her/his students about new information, facts or just
simply say something to them. The opening move will therefore begin with an informative act
and can but does not necessarily need to be followed by a reply by the students. In other words,
the students‘ response here is optional. For example:
Teacher: In the olden days, women used to fetch water from the stream with clay pots.
On the other hand, a directing exchange is designed to get the pupils to do something. Therefore,
the response from the students is the ‗doing‘ part which will most likely but not always be non-
verbal response. Even though it is non-verbal, the students will likely respond to the direction the
teacher has given. For example:
Teacher: Now you can mix the cake. Let‘s see if you can add the ingredients in the right
order.
The most common exchange in the classroom is an eliciting exchange. These exchanges begin
with the teacher asking a question (usually one they already know the answer to). An answer is
then given by the student and finally a follow-up evaluation is given by the teacher. For example,
Teacher: Look up everybody. What is this in my hand? Yes Tolu (initiation)
Pupil: It‘s a knife (response)
Teacher: It‘s a knife, yes. What do you use a knife for? (follow-up) / (initiation)
Pupil: A knife is used to cut bread, meat (response)
Teacher: Yes, a knife is used to cut things (follow-up)
3.1.4 Move
A Move refers to the contribution made by one of the participants in the discourse at a point in
time. There are framing moves which are used to structure the lesson while the focusing moves
are used to draw students‘ attention to the direction of the lesson. The other three moves are the
opening, answering and follow-up moves. The opening move could be used to pass information,
direct an action or elicit a fact. It is deployed by the teacher to direct the students to participate in
a discourse. The answering move which is usually a response from the students is determined by
the head act within the opening act. The follow-up move, which is typically produced by the
teacher, takes place after the answering move as a reaction to the student‘s response. This move
is important because it is the way the students get to know whether they have done what the
teacher wants them to do.
3.1.5 Act
Act is the smallest unit and the lowest rank of the discourse structure. Acts are used to initiate
succeeding discourse activity or respond to earlier discourse activity. The main act in the
opening is called the head act. The head act usually appears in the opening moves in form of
elicitation, directive and informative. Other acts could appear in a move along with the head act
but they are optional.
1. Briefly explain the background to Sinclair and Coulthard‘s Birmingham model
2. Describe three of the components of the Birmingham model.
4.0 Other Perspectives on Classroom Discourse Analysis Research
In the last unit Sinclair and Coulthard‘s discourse analysis approach to classroom communication
was examined. In this section, we would like to consider other approaches that could be used to
collect and analyse classroom data. Rex, Steadman and Graciano (2006) identified seven
perspectives that have been adopted in the study of classroom discourse since the late 1930s.
They include: cognitive, socio-cognitive, ethnographic, sociolinguistics and discourse analysis,
teacher research, process-product and critical approaches. Meyer (2003) on the other hand
identified the following mainstream approaches to classroom discourse analysis. They are the
sociolinguistic approach, the structural approach, the psycholinguistic approach, the
interactionist approach, the strategic approach, the methodological approach and the reflective
approach. Meyer explained that the sociolinguistic approach examines the linguistic variables of
L1 classroom discourse in relation to learning; the structural approach analyses individual
utterances, particularly the way they form larger units of discourse; investigates dependency
between the discourse used in formal instructional environments and its effect on learning; the
interactionist approach compares foreigner talk with classroom discourse, teacher feedback and
error correction styles and social interaction and negotiation of meaning in exchanges between
learners and the native speaker interlocutors; the strategic approach examines teacher-talk
strategies and effects of communication strategies on interaction in institutional and non-
institutional settings; the methodological approach studies patterns of classroom participation,
teacher‘s questioning styles and classroom management discourse. Finally the reflective
approach investigates teaching styles and methodologies of language teacher education in
various institutional and cultural contexts.
Walsh (2011) identified the following as approaches that have also been adopted in the study of
classroom discourse: Interaction analysis approach, discourse analysis approach and
conversation analysis approach. In addition, he identified other approaches which he described as
alternative approaches that could be used to analyze classroom discourse. They include the
corpus linguistics (CL) approach or combined approaches such as CL and CA for example.
Some other scholars (Markee, 2015; Miller, 2015 among others) identify the critical approach to
the study of classroom discourse particularly in second language situation and another approach
that is unfolding which is the study of multimodality in classroom interaction. These and many
more approaches to classroom communication provide research opportunities to analyse different
aspects of classroom interactions. However, none could be said to be completely exhaustive or
able to uncover all the dynamics involved in classroom interactions and the factors which
influence these interactions. Thus, multidisciplinary studies may be useful for eclectic and
broader understanding of classroom communication.
5.0 Conclusion
The central role that education plays in society makes the study of teacher-student interactions
quite important. Although, classroom interactions appear like discourses that take place in other
setting, yet discourse in the classroom, particularly in the traditional classroom setting, is much
more structured and largely controlled by the teacher. Early study of classroom discourse
analysis could be traced to Sinclair and Coulthard who applied Halliday‘s Systemic Linguistic
approach to their study of interactions in the classroom. Other researchers have also applied the
sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, critical, multimodal approaches among others to the study of
discourses that take place in the classroom. Research in the field however will continue to grow
as more eclectic approaches are required to be able to investigate the different dimensions of
interaction in this field.
6.0 Summary
In this unit, we tried to provide definitions for the term Classroom Discourse Analysis. Attention
was paid to the Birmingham model, otherwise known as Initiation, Response and Follow up
(IRF) which was developed by Sinclair and Coulthard in 1975. In addition, other approaches to
classroom discourse analysis were discussed. It could be seen that this area of research in
language study has not only attracted researchers‘ attention for many years but is still unfolding
as scholars being to apply the critical and multimodal approaches to the study of classroom
communication.
Tutor-Marked Assignment
1. Describe classroom discourse based on your study of Sinclair and Coulthard‘s Initiation,
Response and Follow up (IRF).
2. Explain at least two of the more current approaches to the study of classroom discourse.

Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.
Markee, M. (Ed.). (2015). The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction. UK: Wiley
Blackwell.
MODULE 3: CURRENT TRENDS IN THE ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE 1: CRITICAL

PERSPECTIVES
Unit 1: Introduction to Critical Perspectives on Discourse Analysis
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 What is the Critical Perspective to Discourse Study?

4.0 Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis?

5.0 Conclusion
6.0 Summary

1.0 Introduction
As you would have observed, the discussions in Module 1 and Module 2 have centred on
research interests in the study of discourse as a phenomenon of everyday conversation and
classroom interaction. However, just like we noted in Module Two, sometimes scholars choose
to adopt a critical perspective to the study of discourse. The critical approach to language study
is rooted in the theory of social constructionism. The theory which found its hold in the classical
work of Berger and Luckmann‘s The Social Construction of Reality published in 1966 has its
basic argument in the postulation that human beings together create and sustain all social
phenomena through social practices or social actions and language is viewed as a crucial tool
used for creating, sustaining or changing world realities. Critical approaches to the study of
language in use therefore adopt a stance against the taken-for-granted assumptions about the
ways in which language works in society and argue that language is not neutral/ transparent but
largely embedded in society and culture (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997). In addition, scholars in
this field argue that discourse does not just reflect or represent social entities and relations but
construct them in different ways. The critical approach therefore requires that a researcher go
beyond pure description of the structures of text to closely examine the strategies which language
users adopt in text production to encode ideology and power relations. In this unit, we will
discuss the critical perspective to discourse analysis. In addition, we will also identify and
discuss the different perspectives which scholars adopt in the critical analysis of discourse.
2.0 Objectives
 define the notion of ‗critical‘ in discourse studies,

 explain the critical perspective to discourse study,
 identify critical approaches to discourse analysis
MAIN CONTENT
3.0 What is the Critical Perspective to Discourse Study?
The notion, ‗critical‘, in discourse analysis is informed by the idea that relationships between
discursive, social and cultural change are usually not obvious or transparent for people in society.
According to Fairclough (2006), ‗critical‘ implies showing via analysis connections and causes
which are hidden. In addition, he notes that the idea of critical in discourse study also implies
intervention or emancipation for those who might be disadvantaged by providing resources for
them through change. Critical approaches to discourse analysis therefore centre on subjects of
dominance, inequality and injustice. This is because critical analysts view discourse as social
practice, meaning that discourse shapes and is shaped by society. Sometimes, critical also refers
to analysis of discourse that demonstrates resistance of oppression. Blommaert (2005) however
cautions that researchers should not equate critical approaches with ―approaches that criticise
power‖ but rather that critical analysis should be the study of power effects, of outcome of
power, of what power does to people, groups and societies and of how this impact comes about.
The critical perspective to discourse analysis is an ideological position which can be traced to
Systemic Functional Linguistics (Halliday, 1985), critical linguistics (Fowler, et al., 1979),
critical language study, critical language awareness, critical literacy and new literacy studies. It is
multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999).
Critical perspectives to discourse analysis sometimes encompass linguistics, semiotics,
pragmatics, anthropology, sociology, psychology, education, media and critical studies. The
three central concepts common to all research that adopt the critical perspective are power,
ideology and critique. Critical analysis of discourse is traced back to influences from Aristotle,
Marx, the Frankfurt School, Jurgen Habermas, Gramsci, Foucault, and Althuser among others
(van Dijk, 1993). Wodak and Meyer (2003) identify at least seven dimensions common to
different disciplines that adopt the critical perspectives to the study of discourse. They include:
 an interest in the properties of ‘naturally occurring’ language use by real language users
(instead of a study of abstract language systems and invented examples)
 a focus on larger units than isolated words and sentences and, hence, new basic units
of analysis: texts, discourses, conversations, speech acts, or communicative events the
extension of linguistics beyond sentence grammar towards a study of action and
interaction
 the extension to non-verbal (semiotic, multimodal, visual) aspects of interaction and
communication: gestures, images, film, the internet, and multimedia
 a focus on dynamic (socio)-cognitive or interactional moves and strategies
 the study of the functions of (social, cultural, situative and cognitive) contexts of
language use
 an analysis of a vast number of phenomena of text grammar and language use:
coherence, anaphora, topics, macrostructures, speech acts, interactions, turn-taking, signs,
politeness, argumentation, rhetoric, mental models, and many other aspects of text and
discourse.
1. How do you understand the notion of critical in discourse study?

2. Demonstrate your understanding of the assumptions common to all critical perspectives
to discourse studies
4.0 Critical Approaches to the Study of Discourse
As earlier mentioned, scholarship in discourse analysis has also extended to critical approaches
to the study of different areas where language is used in society for different purposes. Some of
the fields that have adopted the critical perspective include classroom discourse analysis, media
discourse analysis, political discourse analysis, studies in ethnography, multimodal discourse
analysis, etc. For instance, critical classroom discourse analysis (CCDA) investigates the socio-
cultural and socio-political dimensions to classroom discourse. This helps to account for the
sociocultural, socio-political and sociolinguistic dimensions of classroom activities. According to
Kumaravadivelu (1999), the sociolinguistic and behaviouristic approaches earlier adopted in
classroom discourse analysis and classroom interaction analysis respectively were not adequate
to account for ideological influences on the construction of discourse in the classroom. Another
example of critical approach to discourse is Social semiotics. Social semiotics is a critical
approach to discourse study which views language and other modes of communication as social
practice. Contrary to the traditional approach to the study of semiotics, social semioticians note
that sign making is a motivated activity deployed to express meaning rather than a random use of
signs. In addition, they argue that no single semiotic code can be understood in isolation since
meaning resides in the multiplicity of codes deployed in texts (Hodge and Kress, 1995). Thus,
social semiotic study of discourse involves analysis of the linguistic and non-linguistics
resources that text producers employ in meaning making.
Another approach to the critical study of discourse is Critical Discourse Analysis. Its
fundamental research interest according to Wodak (2001) is to analyse opaque as well as
transparent structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifest
in language. Computer Mediated Communication (henceforth CMC) has also witnessed a critical
paradigm in the study of Computer Mediated Discourse (CMD). Herring (2001) argues that
despite the earlier perception of CMC as a purely neutral medium for the transfer of data and
information, the genre actually exhibits influence of social conditioning based on the discourse
topic and activity type. These different approaches to the critical analysis of discourse shall be
examined in detail in Module 4.
Explain two critical perspectives to discourse study
5.0 Conclusion
The critical study of language and indeed, other semiotic modes of discourse is an area of
language that has attracted the attention of scholars over the years. On the one hand, the critical
perspective helps scholars to understand better the effect of the social dimension on the
structuring of language and the roles it performs in different spheres of society. On the other
hand, the critical approach helps to query the taken-for-granted assumptions of language as a
transparent and neutral mode of communication, and thus helps to establish the fact that the use
of language is largely conditioned by its context of use. Invariably, the critical study of
discourse helps to make clear opaque naturalized discourse which often helps powerful social
actors to enact inequality and dominance in society via the use of language.
5.0 Summary
In this unit, you have been provided with background information to the critical study of
discourse analysis. We also considered some examples of different fields that have adopted the
critical perspective to the study of discourse. The next unit presents a historical view of the
development of critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis.

1. From your understanding of critical perspective, what do you think is the contribution of this
approach to discourse analysis?
2. Connect the theory of social constructionism to the critical study of discourse

Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: University Press.
Fairclough, N. (2006). Discourse & Social Change. UK: Blackwell.
Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2011). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Sage.
Unit 2: From Critical Linguistics to Critical Discourse Analysis: A Historical Perspective
Content
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Critical Linguistics (CL)
3.1 Self-Assessment
3.2 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

3.3 Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis
3.4 Self-Assessment
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
In Unit 1, we examined the notion of ‗critical‘ in discourse studies. In addition, you were also
introduced to some of the fields where the critical perspective to the analysis of discourse has
been applied. As you can see, the critical approach to language studies developed at a stage in
the history of linguistic enquiries on the use of language. In this Unit, we will be looking at the
historical development of the critical study of discourse. Indeed, two schools of critical schools
of discourse are prominent. They are research in the field of Critical Linguistics and Critical
Discourse Analysis. The discussion in this Unit will focus on these two approaches to critical
scholarship of discourse analysis.
2.0 Objectives
 Explain the history of critical study of discourse

 Discuss Critical Linguistics
 Discuss Critical Discourse Analysis
 Identify and discuss different approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Critical Linguistics (CL)
As far as we know from current day research in the use of language, the foundation of the critical
approach to the study of discourse could be traced to Critical Linguistics (henceforth, CL).
Particularly, in the 20th century, researchers began to systematically study the political and social
dimensions to text. Although, in some quarters, it is believed that CL and Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA) are terms that could actually be used interchangeably, yet our idea of CL in this
discussion is the approach developed mainly by Roger Fowler, Robert Hodge and Gunther Kress
at the University of East Anglia in the 1970s. Essentially, critical linguists emphasise the study
of the interrelations between language, thought and culture. CL proponents argue that there is a
connection between linguistic structure (language) and social structure (society). They therefore
focus on the study of language in relation to social and historical context. Ideology is also central
to critical linguistics. Indeed, CL reflects the view that linguistic structure could potentially have
ideological significance. Thus, CL research aims at increasing awareness of how language could
serve as a means which power social actors use to dominate others in society. Critical linguists
pay attention to the study of implicit expressions of power via conventions which underlie
everyday social interactions. Fairclough (2006) explains that CL researchers try to link the a
method of linguistic text analysis with a social theory of the functioning of language in
ideological processes by drawing on mainly on Halliday‘s systemic functional linguistics. In
view of this, CL proponents agree that linguistic structure perform ideational, interpersonal and
textual functions and thus encode social meaning.
CL as a discipline distances itself from other linguistic approaches that prevailed in the 1970s,
such as formal descriptive approaches which studied language from the Chomskyan view which
divorced language from its context; pragmatics which studied language in context, yet placed too
much emphasis on individual agency rather than seeing discourse as a social phenomenon; and
sociolinguistics, which at that time focused on the study of language variation and change, not
paying attention to social relations and structures. Critical linguistics differs from other linguistic
approaches also in the close attention that it pays to grammar and lexis in its analysis of
language. It therefore investigates the following areas: transitivity patterns of sentences, the
syntactic transformations of clauses, including passive transformation and nominalization, which
bring about agent deletion, lexical structure, pointing out the potential of categorization by
vocabulary to reproduce ideology, modality, and speech acts. CL analysis demonstrates that
there is not a constant relationship between form and content. In other words, the meaning of
discourse is derived not only from linguistic forms but also from context. According to
Fairclough (1992, 29), one of the drawbacks of the early work of critical linguistics was its main
focus on the function of discourse in the reproduction of dominant ideology. This has, however,
been overcome in more recent works (see for instance, Wodak and Meyer 2009), which
demonstrate that discourse is often a site of conflicting ideologies, where existing power
relations can be maintained, challenged or resisted.
1. Trace the origin of Critical Linguistics
2. How does Critical linguistics differ from the descriptive studies of language which preceded
it?
3.3 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth, CDA) is connected to Critical Linguistics (find

discussion on the latter in 3.1) because they share similar perspective on the social and political
significance of text. Indeed, Noam Fairclough‘s Critical Discourse Analysis (1995) used CL as
the basis for the ‗descriptive‘ level of his study. CL has also been influential in the development
of other Teun van Djk‘s Socio-cognitive approach and Ruth Wodak‘s Discourse-Historical
approach to CDA. The history of CDA dates back to 1991 when the following linguists: Teun
van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak, Gunter Kress and Theo van Leeuwen attended a
two-day workshop in Amsterdam where debates on the critical approach to discourse analysis
was held. This workshop is significant in the development of CDA because it was there that
discussions on methodologies and approaches to critical discourse analysis among scholars
begun. As earlier noted in Unit 1 of Module 3, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) just like other
critical approaches to discourse also views language as social practice and is interested in the
ways that ideologies and power relations are expressed through language. The main aim of CDA
is to study the link between language, social structures and relations, emphasizing that the
relationship between language and society is dialectical. CDA also views discourse is shaped and
constrained by social structure in the widest sense and at all levels. Proponents of CDA (for
example, Fairclough, 1992) note that discourse contributes to the constitution of all dimensions
of social structure which directly or indirectly shape and constrain it with regards to social norms
and conventions, as well as the relations, identities and institutions which lie behind them.
Due to its critical enterprise thrust, CDA‘s primary goal is to investigate the link between
language, power and ideology. To do this, most of the studies conducted in CDA often focus on
how discourse is shaped by existing power relations and on the effects of discourse – whether it
serves to reproduce, undermine or transform the existing relations. Wodak (2006, 10) reveals that
the main target of CDA research is to ―‗demystify‘ discourses by deciphering ideologies‖; in
other words, analysts try to bring into awareness the ways in which ideology determines the
structuring of discourse and the effects of discourse of social relations. It is important to note that
CDA studies become important based on the fact that discourses produced mainly by institutions
and groups have become naturalized and thus, the tendency is for language users to view the m
as commonsensical.
Critical discourse analysts therefore study lexis and grammar, presuppositions, implicatures,
argumentation and coherence among others from the point of view that they could be
ideologically invested. Recently, multimodal analysis has been incorporated into CDA. As a part
of social semiotics, it recognizes that ―human societies use a variety of modes of representation‖
(such as verbal, visual, gestures, etc.), with each mode having a different potential for meaning
making (Kress and van Leeuwen 1998, 39). Multimodal analysts argue that all texts are
multimodal in that spoken language is always accompanied by paralinguistic means of
communication such as sound, rhythm, intonation, facial expression, gesture and posture while
the written language is always a visual arrangement of marks on a page. Thus, they argue that to
be able to account for all the meanings expressed in discourse, it is necessary to employ
multimodal analysis.
According to van Dijk (1993), there are principles which govern all approaches to CDA. They
are explained below:
1. First, all CDA research focus on dominance and inequality manifest in social issues,
which it hopes to better understand through discourse analysis. In this regard, theories,
descriptions, methods and empirical work are employed on the basis of their relevance to
whatever sociopolitical issues which they have identified and intend to study.
2. Second, CDA research is usually multidisciplinary in approach. This is due to its
preoccupation with the study of social problems which are naturally complex.
3. Third, complex and highly sophisticated theories are employed for better understanding
of power in society. Relevant theoretical issues are usually deployed in the analysis of the
complex relationships between dominance and discourse.
4. Fourth, critical discourse analysts explicitly state their sociopolitical point of view,
perspectives, principles and aims, both within their discipline and within society at large.
This is because their research in CDA is ultimately political and analysts often stand in
solidarity with those who suffer most from dominance and inequality. In most cases, heir
critical targets are the power elites that enact, sustain, legitimate, condone or ignore social
inequality and injustice. However, some CDA research also focus on the discursive
resistance of domination.
5. Fifth, research problems in CDA are 'real' problems, that is, the serious problems that
threaten the lives or well-being of many, and not primarily the sometimes petty
disciplinary problems of describing discourse structures.
6. Sixth, the success of a CDA research is assessed by its effectiveness and contribution to
change in areas of inequality in political discourse, racism, sexism and gender
discrimination, media manipulative discourse, etc.
3.4 Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis
In their pursuit of the critical study of discourse, analysts apply several approaches to the
investigation of power relations and dominance in society. Indeed, Ruth Wodak (2003:6) has
noted that there is no uniformity or common theory formation that determines CDA. We will
however consider in this section, the approaches adopted by the three of the leading scholars in
CDA research: Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak and Teun van Dijk. These approaches are
known as the socio-cultural approach, the discourse-historical approach and the socio-cognitive
approach respectively. They are briefly discussed below.
Socio-cultural Approach
This is an approach to Critical Discourse analysis which was developed by Norman Fairclough
for studying discourse. This framework maps three separate forms of analysis onto one another:
analysis of social practice, analysis of text and analysis of discursive practice. At the level of
social practice, the study is expected to focus on the ideological effects and hegemonic processes
in which discourse is seen to operate. In other words, the analysis is on the social context in
which the text is produced. It takes into consideration social and cultural relations and structures
that constitute the wider context of the discursive practice. The textual analysis on the other
hand, includes the description of linguistic features of concrete instances of discourse, that is
choices and patterns in vocabulary (e.g. lexis/choice of words, figures), grammar (transitivity,
modality and theme), texture (cohesion). Finally, the discursive practice dimension is concerned
with the analysis of discursive strategies employed in the production, consumption and
distribution of texts. In other words, analysis of texts at this level is concerned with the ways
texts are embedded within and relate to social conditions of production and consumption.
Discourse-historical approach (DHA)

The discourse-historical approach to CDA is a form of critical study of discourse which was
developed in Vienna by Martin Reisigl and Ruth Wodak (2001). DHA mainly focuses on the
systematic analysis of context and its dialectical relationship to meaning-making. Proponents
argue that discourse is always historical, that is there is a diachronic and synchronic connection
between discourse and other communicative events which have happened in the past or currently
taking place. In other words, DHA places emphasis on finding out as much about context as
possible. DHA analysis takes into account the use of language in particular texts, intertextual
relationships, interdiscursivity, social variables and institutional frames which relate to the
situation and sociopolitical and historical context in which discourse is produced: DHA approach
attempts to integrate much available knowledge about the historical sources and the background
of the social and political fields in which discursive ―events‖ are embedded‘ (Reisigl and Wodak
2001: 35). In a typical discourse-historical analysis, the researcher will first outline the contents
or topics of a particular discourse, then investigate the discursive strategies (such as
argumentation) used to maintain it and finally examine the ways that particular constructions
(such as stereotypes) are linguistically achieved.
Socio-cognitive approach
This is an approach to carrying out CDA was developed by Teun Van Dijk (1998, 2001). This
approach relates discourse structures to social structures via a complex socio-cognitive interface.
It deals with communicative Common Ground and the shared social knowledge, as well as
attitudes and ideologies of language users as current participants and members of social groups
and communities. Socio-cognitive approach shows that many structures of discourse can only be
adequately described in terms of notions of cognition such as information, knowledge or beliefs
of participants. It thus, makes explicit the link between discourse, cognition and society. In
practice, it involves the analysis of topics (or macrostructures), local meanings (relating to
phenomena such as word choice), context models and mental models (involving knowledge,
attitudes and ideologies) and the relationship between discourse and society. Van Dijk (2001:
118) describes this approach as a ‗permanent bottom-up and top-down linkage of discourse and
interaction with social structures‘.
1. Briefly explain what you understand by Critical Linguistics
2. What are the common principles which govern all approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis?
4.0 Conclusion
The critical approach to the study of discourse is a form of research that has been embraced by
discourse analysts over the years. The root of critical study of language use is traced to scholars‘
interest in questioning the taken-for-granted approach to language use and study. Following the
social constructionists‘ approach to creation and sustenance of knowledge, belief and ideology,
critical approaches attempt to investigate the underlying influence of social context on the
structuring and use of language. Critical Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis are
approaches to the study of discourse which share common critical perspectives to the study of
discourse.
5.0 Summary
In this unit, you have been provided with background information to the critical study of
discourse. In the Unit, a mention was made of the different fields which have applied the critical
perspective to discourse analysis. In this regard, you were provided with discussions on Critical
Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). In addition, three different approaches
to CDA were also examined in the Unit.
Discuss three approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London:
Longman.
Weiss, G & Wodak, R. (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity, New
York: Macmillian.
MODULE 3 CURRENT TRENDS IN THE ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE 1: CRITICAL

PERSPECTIVES
UNIT 3: DISCOURSE AND IDEOLOGY
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Unit Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Ideology
3.2 How Ideologies are expressed in Discourses
3.2 Political ideologies

4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
1.0 Introduction
Different kinds of views are expressed through discourse. People can be manipulated and
subjugated through discourses too. The most common way through which people are made to do
the bidding of the one who has the upper hand in the discourse, is through passing ideas to them
subtly. In the next section, we will look at what ideology means.
2.0 Unit Objectives
At the end of the unit, students should:
 Be able to explain and give more than one definition of ideology

 Explain how Ideologies are expressed in discourses
3.1 Ideology
The term "ideology" was born during the Great Terror of Terror of French Revolution, and
acquired several other meanings thereafter. The word, and the system of ideas associated with it,
was coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy in 1796 while he was in prison pending trial during the
Terror. The word was created by assembling the words ‗idea‘ from Greek ( iδέα) ‗logy‘, from
(λογία).
Tracy reacted to the terroristic phase of the revolution by trying to work out a rational system of
ideas to oppose the irrational mob impulses that had nearly destroyed him. He came up with the
term (ideology) to refer to a ‗science of ideas‘ which he hoped would form a secure foundation
for the moral and political sciences by examining two things: first: sensations people experienced
as they interact with the material world; and second the ideas that formed in their minds due to
those sensations. He conceived of ‗Ideology‘— a liberal philosophy which provided a powerful
defense of individual liberty, property and constitutional limits on state power. He argues that
among these aspects, ideology is the most generic term, because the science of ideas also
contains the study of their expression and deduction. In the century after Tracy, the word
oscillated between positive and negative connotations. According to Fairclough (1989),
instruction operates from the assumption that all text are driven by a set of beliefs or ideologies
that the author hopes to forward or background, and an important part of developing literacy
skills is gaining the ability to detect those ideologies. Fairclough in most of his works has tried to
raise people‘s consciousness to hidden ideologies in texts. He explains that instruction moves
people through four stages: reflection, systemizing, explanation, and developing practice.
Collectively, these stages allow people to ponder how discourses in the stories connect to their
own lives (reflection), how language is used to advance the beliefs that authors hold and make
them appear as common sense (systemizing and explanation), and, finally, how people can find
ways to change these discourses in their own lives (developing practice). People can be made to
do things that are not their wishes through the use of force or through the control of the mind
through the control of knowledge ("propaganda") or culture (belief). In a country for instance
there may be dominant ideologies about classes of people, about ethnic groups and so on. The
ideologies will be circulated by the persons in a particular group. The rich in a society may
circulate ideologies which will make the poor to always believe whatever the rich says.
How is ideology different from truth?
3.2 How Ideologies are expressed in Discourses
Ideologies are expressed in discourses. Ideology is the lens through which a person sees a
phenomenon or the world. It exists in different fields of study. Within sociology, ideology is
broadly understood as referring to the worldview a person has that is the sum total of their
culture, values, beliefs, assumptions, common sense, and expectations for themselves and of
others. Ideology gives an identity within society, within groups, and in relation to other people. It
shapes our thoughts, actions, interactions, and what happens in our lives and in the society at
large. It plays a fundamental and powerful role in shaping social life, how society, as a whole, is
organized, and how it functions. Ideology is directly permeates the social structure, economic
system of production, and political structure. It both emerges out of these things and shapes
them. And, as ideology emerges out of the social structure and social order, it is generally
expressive of the social interests that are supported by both. Ideology also performs the function
of framing how one sees the world and interprets events and experiences, in the sense that a
frame captures and centers certain things and excludes others from view and consideration.
Often, when people use the word "ideology" they are referring to a particular ideology rather
than the concept itself. Much attention is often paid to what is known as the dominant ideology,
or the particular ideology that is most common and strongest in a given society. Most times, the
dominant ideology may not be true. However, the concept of ideology itself is actually general in
nature and not tied to one particular way of thinking. It is important to note that there are various
and competing ideologies operating in a society at any given time, some more dominant than
others.
Ideology determines how we make sense of things. It provides an ordered view of the world, our
place in it, and relationship to others. It is deeply important to the human experience, and
typically something that people cling to and defend, whether or not they are conscious of doing
so. Ideologies are not permanent. Views and beliefs about a phenomenon can change, signaling a
change or a shift in ideology. Ideology is a set of ideas that seeks to explain some or all aspects
of reality, lays down values and preferences in respect of both ends and means, and includes a
programme of action for the attainment of the defined ends.
There are different types of ideology, such as political, legal, gender and sexuality, ethnic,
religious. The list of types of ideologies is inexhaustible so long as there are different groups in
the society. Political ideology will subsume certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines,
myths, or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how
society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order.
Political ideologies are concerned with many different aspects of a society. Using Nigeria as a
reference point, ethnic ideology will enshrine stereotypes that a particular ethnic group is better
than the other based on preconceive notions about the other group. Each ethnic group will see
themselves as better than the other group.
According to van Dijk (1998a) Ideologies are defined as basic shared systems of social
cognitions of each group in the society. Ideological groups share fundamental beliefs such as
their cultural knowledge. These groups could be religious, ethnic, academic, etc. each group
would have ways through which they control group attitudes and mental models of group
members about specific events and experiences. Van Dijk used the labels ‗Us‘ versus ‗Them‘ to
show how groups polarized themselves and the ‗other‘. The aim is to foreground ‗Our Good
Things‘, and ‗Their Bad Things‘, and then background ‗Our Bad Things‘ and ‗Their Good
Things‘. This is referred to as the Ideological Square.
Ideologies are expressed and generally reproduced in the social practices of their members, and
more particularly acquired, confirmed, changed and perpetuated through discourse. General
properties of language and systematic discourse analysis offer powerful methods to study the
structures and functions of ‗underlying‘ ideologies in texts. As a student of the English language,
note that the ideological polarization between ingroups and outgroups— a prominent feature of
the structure of ideologies—can also be systematically studied at all levels of text and talk, for
example by analysing how members of a particular group (ingroups) typically emphasize their
own good deeds and properties and the bad ones of the other group (outgroup), and mitigate or
deny their own bad ones and the good ones of the outgroup.
Willard A. Mullins says that an ideology should be compared with the related (but different)
issues of utopia and historical myth. An ideology is composed of four basic characteristics:
ideology must have power over cognition; it must be capable of guiding one's evaluations; it
must provide guidance towards action; and it must be logically coherent. When you look closely
at any ideology of a group, you are likely to observe these characteristics listed by Mullins.
SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE
Get a sample of a political party‘s manifesto, try and see how ideologies are expressed in the
speech. Pick out the words which have ideologies hidden in them.
3.3 Political ideologies
Let us in this section of this unit look at the first in the types of ideologies mentioned above. That
is, political ideology. In social studies, a political ideology is a certain ethical set of beliefs,
doctrines, principles and ideas of a group of people, class, or institution which dictates and
explains how society should work. Political ideologies can emanate from any group in the
society. For example, an institution may have people who have a particular political idea and
beliefs which they would want to impose on others. Note that in a political group there may a
times be dissenting voices in the group, when this happen groups disintegrate and fall apart, but
in the time they are together, their beliefs to them are the best. Political ideologies have two
dimensions: the first, is their goals or aims, the binding force of members of the group is that
they share the same view of how society should work. Second, is in the methods, that is how
best to achieve their goals. A political ideology mainly concerns itself with how to allocate
power, and to what ends power should be used. Some parties follow a definite ideology very
closely, while others may take far-reaching inspiration from a group of related ideologies without
specifically embracing any one of them. Each political ideology contains certain ideas on what it
considers to be the best ways things should be done in the society. Sometimes the same word is
used to identify both an ideology and one of its main ideas. For instance, ‗socialism‘ may refer to
an economic system, or it may refer to an ideology which supports that economic system.
Ideology means different things to different people. According to Minar ideology has been used
in six different ways: as a collection of certain ideas with certain kinds of content, usually
normative; as the form or internal logical structure that ideas have within a set; by the role in
which ideas play in human-social interaction; by the role that ideas play in the structure of an
organization; as meaning, whose purpose is persuasion; and as the locus of social interaction.
Below are some definitions of the term ‗ideology‘ by Terry Eagleton:
1. the medium in which conscious social actors make sense of their world;
2. the indispensable medium in which individuals live out their relations to a social
structure;
3. forms of thought motivated by social interests;
4. ideas which help to legitimate a dominant political power;
5. systematically distorted communication;
6. socially necessary illusion;
7. false ideas which help to legitimate a dominant political power;
8. the process of production of meanings, signs and values in social life;
9. a body of ideas characteristic of a particular social group or class;
10. that which offers a position for a subject;
11. identity thinking;
12. the conjuncture of discourse and power;
13. action-oriented sets of beliefs;
14. the confusion of linguistic and phenomenal reality;
15. semiotic closure;
16. the process whereby social life is converted to a natural reality.
When you want to carry out an analysis of a text, look for the dominant ideas in the text through
the choice of lexical items. If the text is a multimodal one, look for signs which have underlying
meanings in it. If for you are carrying out an analysis based on van Dijk‘s ideological square
mentioned above, you have to look at how parties or actors are represented in the report. If the
report is just a verbal one, you can focus on what types of adjectives are used in reporting each of
the parties/actors. Who among the parties received the greatest coverage in the report and why?
If the report is a combination of visual and verbal, you can look at how has the greatest visual
coverage? Is the more visual coverage positive or negative? Etc.

Explain three dominant ideologies in the press
4 Conclusion
Societies are heterogeneous. This means that people will have different ideas, different views
and perception of things and life generally. Prominent people would want their views to be
dominant in the society. Therefore, it is important to be conscious and be aware of the ideology
in a particular place or a particular part of the society. Most reports are not neutral they have
ideologies underlying them.
5 Summary
In this unit we gave different definitions of ideology, we look at some basic characteristics of
ideology. One overriding fact in the various definitions is that ideology is a set of belief which a
group of people hold or share. Each group in the society will feel their ideas are the best.
Give your own definition of the term ‗ideology‘
Explain any experience you have had oft being under the influence of any strong views and
beliefs.

Billig, M.1991. Ideology and Opinions. London: Sage.
Fowler, R. 1991. Language in the News. Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London:
Routledge
Rosenberg, S.W. 1988. Reason, Ideology and Politics. London: Polity Press.
Van Dijk, T.A. 1991. Racism and the Press. London: Routledge.
Wodak, R., ed. 1989. Language, Power and Ideology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998a). Ideology. A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage Publications.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1998b). Ideology and Discourse. London: Sage Publications.

PERSPECTIVES
UNIT 4: DISCOURSE AND POWER
Contents
8.0 Introduction
9.0 Unit Objectives
10.0 Main Content
3.1 Power in the lens of theorists
3.2 Domination and Power
3.2.1 Individual/group domination strategies
3.3 Influences in Discourses

11.0 Conclusion
12.0 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In the previous unit, you learnt about the discourse and ideology, we saw that ideologies are
mainly expressed through words and acts. This unit explains how the privileged to resources in
the society control the mental models of the less privileged. This control is power. ‗Power‘ is a
relative term because its meaning changes in respect to context and discipline. Control of mental
modes comes in various ways. Various definition of power as put across by renowned scholars is
also presented in this unit.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
1. Discuss how linguistics structures can be used to control people‘s actions

2. Differentiate between individual and group ideologies
3. Say how domination and power are inextricably linked.
3 Main Content
3.1 Power in the lens of theorists
Central to most critical discourse analysis is ‗Power and its enactment in the society‘. Giddens
(1984, pp. 15, 257), for example, defines power as ―transformative capacity‖ or ―the capacity to
achieve outcomes‖.Though Giddens frequently associates power with domination in his writings,
he observes that ―power is not necessarily linked with struggle, ... and power is not inherently
oppressive‖. Indeed, there is power in cooperation among equals, and even when power is
unevenly distributed it can still be expressed in forms that are subtle.
Towards the end of the 20th century, several theorists of power began to invoke what has become
a widely-used distinction between two broad ways of thinking and talking about power. This
distinction is made by contrasting the expression ―power to‖ with the expression ―power over‖
(e.g., Pitkin, 1972; Macpherson, 1973; Connolly, 1974; Hartsock, 1974; Coser, 1976; Lukes,
1986; Dowding, 1996). As Wartenberg (1990, p.27) explains, the expressions power-to and
power-over are a shorthand way of making a distinction between two fundamentally different
ordinary-language locutions within which the term ―power‖ occurs. Depending upon which
locution one takes as the basis of one‘s theory of power, one will arrive at a very different model
of the role of power in the social world. The predominant model of power in most societies can
be referred to as ‗power-over model‘ The ―power to‖ model is predominant in the physical and
natural sciences, while ―power over‖ model highlights issues of social conflict, control, and
coercion, which is common in societies where different classes of people are. This power as
domination paradigm traces back, either implicitly or explicitly, through the writings of diverse
social and political theorists, from Machiavelli (1961) to Weber (1986) to Bourdieu (1994). It
informed Hobbes‘ (1968) notion of a ―war of all against all‖ as well as Marx and Engels‘ (1967)
theory of historical. Powerful groups, bourgeois control the actions of the less privileged in the
society through ways that are not very visible. They are expressed not only through words but
through any semiotic resources use in communication.
The various definitions of power are based on theorists background. Dahl (1969, p. 80) from a
behavioral angle conceptualized power explaining that ―A has power over B to the extent that he
can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do‖. Bachrach and Baratz (1970) in
response to Dahl‘s definition argued that power over others can also be exercised in more subtle
ways that involve ―the mobilization of bias‖ within a social or political system in a manner that
prevents some people or groups from advancing their own self-identified interests. They further
explain that ‗‗Power is also exercised when A devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing
social and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process
to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A. To the
extent that A succeeds in doing this, B is prevented, for all practical purposes, from bringing to
the fore any issues that in their resolution might be seriously detrimental to A‘s set of
preferences‘‘ (Bachrach and Baratz, 1970, p. 7). Also looking at ‗power‘ Lukes (1974), insists
that Dahl (1969) and (Bachrach and Baratz, 1970) conceptualizations are too simplistic. He says
that power over others can also be exercised by preventing them from identifying or recognizing
their own interests. Put in another way, power can be exercised over others by cultivating what
Marx and Engels (1967) referred to as false consciousness, or by exercising what Gramsci
(1971) referred to as cultural hegemony. Lukes (1974, p. 23) further explains: A may exercise
power over B by getting him to do what he does not want to do, but he also exercises power over
him by influencing, shaping or determining his very wants.
Foucault (1980) sees power as a relational force that permeates the entire social body, connecting
all social groups in a network of common influence. As an interactive force, power constructs
social organization and order by producing discourses and truths, by imposing discipline and
order, and by shaping human requirements and subjectivities. Foucault perceives power as
simultaneously productive and repressive: a social group in the society cannot function without
it, despite its repeatedly repressive indicators. By recognizing the productive function of power,
Foucault agrees with the ―power to‖ theorists, but situates himself in his analyses squarely within
the power-as-domination tradition, and his over-arching project is clearly one of resistance to
such expressions of power.
From the discussion of power above, give three definitions of the term
State how Dahl‘s view of power differs from Foucault‘s
3.2 Domination and Power
In the section above we examined some theorists view and definition of power. Like mentioned
somewhere in this unit, power is a key term in CDA. It is the authority the advantaged in the
society has over the less privileged. This put literalrily is domination. This brings us to the sub
head of this section—‗domination and power‘. The study of power in the academic world has
been approached in many ways. For example, some theorists have focused on the different
forms that power takes as have been seen above, as well as the bases or resources that permit the
exercise of power (Wartenberg, 1990; Wrong, 1997); some have explored the complex
relationship between the quantitative distribution of power and the processes of social agreement
that legitimate various expressions of power (Hindess, 1996); some have examined the changing
ways that power circulates throughout societies, constructing social institutions as well as
individual subjectivities, as it imposes order and discipline in historically specific ways
(Foucault, 1980); and others have approached the subject of power from other theoretical
perspectives. Without further explanation, you can guess the link between ‗domination and
power‘. The more advantaged in the society have privilege access to information; social
structures etc.; for example the media. The media have privilege to news that the masses do not
have, the media also has institutional power which the masses too does not have. If the media
then decide to manipulate information to favour some quarters, which they will do through
language, we see power and domination at play. Power that is expressed in discourses enhances
domination of the less privileged in the society. Domination is then defined as a specific
relationship of control between social groups or organizations – and not as a property of
interpersonal relations. Consistent with the overall system, such control has a social and a
cognitive dimension: control of the actions (and hence discourses) of dominated groups and their
members, on the one hand, and control of their personal and socially shared cognitions – mental
models, knowledge, attitudes and ideologies – on the other. Discourse plays a crucial role in the
exercise of power.
Can you think of any form of domination from the media in recent times?
3.2.1 Individual/group domination strategies
Some individuals may believe they have superior knowledge over those around them. They show
this in their attitude and actions. Individual who do this are mostly in the upper class in the
society. Individual domination is manifested in different ways, like the way he talks and acts etc.
For example, a boss who owns a big company and has so many workers under him may
consciously and unconsciously act and behave in ways as to dominate others through making
them always take orders from him and behave in ways that he wants. An individual who is from
a very rich family may be cocky as a result of having privileged access to wealth in terms of
knowledge, material resources and goodwill; he may thus manipulate or otherwise control public
discourse and the subsequent actions of others.
The focus of most critical discourse studies is in the groups and organizations that directly or
indirectly control and set the agenda for public discourse. Public discourses such as politics, the
mass media, education, culture and business corporations are domains where domination may
play out. The critical study of discourse needs an important social component, that is the focus
on power abuse of dominant groups or the resistance of dominated groups, as well as with
organizations, institutions, enterprises and nation states, among other societal macrostructures.
Part of this societal account of discursive domination and resistance has been formulated in terms
of social cognition, that is, as the specific knowledge, attitudes and ideologies shared by the
members of these societal organizations. General ideologies, as well as their more specific
attitudes, also control the personal experiences, that is, the mental models of the members of
ideological groups. And if these (biased) models control discourse, they are often expressed in
the polarized ideological discourse structures. Hence, in such ideological discourse we may
observe a positive representation of ‗Our‘ group, and a negative representation of the ‗Others‘ —
always depending on the communicative situation, that is, our context models — at all levels of
text or talk: topics, lexicon, descriptions, argumentation and so on. Some groups may have
different attitudes about them — for instance as being good or bad, prohibited or allowed,
depending on their underlying ideologies. Although the precise mental structure of such socially
shared attitudes is still unknown, it is likely that they are also schematically organized, as is the
case for most of our beliefs.
A more sociological approach on power focuses on the micro-level of everyday interaction of
social members on the one hand, and on the macro-level of the overall structures and relations of
groups and organizations on the other. For instance, much of the information we read in the
paper or see on television depends on the internal organization of news production within media
organizations on the one hand, as well as on the relations between such corporations and the
government, political parties or social groups, on the other hand. Such high-level societal
macrostructures are actually implemented and reproduced by the everyday activities and
interactions of their members at the basic micro-level of the social order. And much of such local
(inter-)actions are carried out by text and talk. Van Dijk says that through activity, goals,
relations to other groups and resources or interests, a group‘s ideology can be unearth. He used
the ‗Us‘ versus ‗Them‘ polarized structure to capture how groups see themselves and how they
see others. A group naturally will highlight their positive side and highlight the negative side of
the other group, the same group will downplay their negative side and also downplay the positive
side of the other group. These are all crucial for the social definition of groups. In other words,
the ‗Others‘ are represented as a threat to ‗Us‘. Power and abuse of power, domination and
manipulation, as well as all other illegitimate forms of discourse, interaction and communication
are rooted in social structure and relations between different social groups.
Identify three group domination strategies
3.3 Influences in Discourses
Influences and control exist in different domains where discourses are deployed. People in higher
classes in the social ladder have ways of controlling/manipulating or swaying the subordinates
into doing their bidding. The word to describe such levels of control is ‗power‘; such influences
can be subtle or can be by force. Mechanisms have being put in place to checkmate stronger
people from forcing others to do their bidding. In simple terms using subtle ways to cajole
people to do ones bidding is termed hegemony. Hegemony presupposes power as an ontological
object: The ruling class dominates the ruled through hegemony--that is the culture or beliefs of
society. Power radiated outwards from the powerful to control the masses.
Power manifests through discourses. Discourses and power, according to Foucault, are intimately
tied together and distributed. In any society, there are manifold relations of power which
permeate, characterise and constituted the social body, and these relations of power cannot
themselves be establised, consolidated nor implemented without the prodcution, accumulation,
circulation and functioning of a discourse ... Power must be analysed as something which
circulates, It is never localised here or there, never in anybody's hands, never appropriated as a
commodity or a piece of wealth. Power is employed and exercised through a net-like
organisation. People are simultaneously undergoing and exercising this power ... In other words,
individuals are the vehicles of power So, in this case there is no ruling class creating a
hegemonic discourse that controls individuals, rather discourse circulate though individual
practice and beliefs.
List ten words which have domination connotations
4.0 Conclusion
Power is enacted both in verbal, written and visual discourses. Power sometimes can be overt
and sometimes covert. Both individuals and groups have ideologies and these are the underlying
force why dominance is enacted in discourses. Each group or each individual in places of
authority would want their views and voices to be hear more than those of others.
5.0 Summary
In this unit we have looked at the term power from the different perspectives of some theorists. It
is important to note that the power we are concerned with in this course is the power that is
manifested through discourses. Scholars distinguished power through using the labels ―power to‖
and ―power over‘‘. The ―power to‖ model is predominant in the physical and natural sciences,
while ―power over‖ model highlights issues of social conflict between the privilege and the less
privileged.

How is the power enacted by the media different from the power a teacher has over the student?
What are the bases for the power of a particular group in the society?
How would you describe the ‗power‘ the dissident group Boko Haram has?
Clegg, S.R. (1989). Frameworks of Power. London: Sage.

Dowding, Keith. (1996). Power. Buckingham: Open University Press
Fairclough, N. ([1989] 1992 [2010]). Language and Power. London: Longman
Foucault, Michael. (1980). Power/Knowledge. Brighton, UK: Harvester.
Lakoff, R. T. (1990). Talking Power. The Politics of Language. New York: Basic Books.
Lukes, S., ed. (1986). Power. Oxford: Blackwell

Van Dijk, Teun A. (2008). Discourse and Power. Houndmills: Palgrave–Macmillan.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (2009). Society and Discourse. How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PERSPECTIVES
UNIT 5: Discourse and Hegemony
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Unit Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Hegemony
3.2 Hegemonic structures in discourses
3.3 Types of hegemony
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
3.0 Main content
1.0 Introduction
As you have learnt in previous units, discourse is used to achieve different aims. You have learnt
that ideology is a way through which people pass across their personal ideas to others, sometimes
it is in a bid to control their actions. In this unit, you are going to learn another way through
which discourse manifest—hegemony.
2.0 Unit objectives
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:
 Explain what hegemony is

 How hegemony differs from ideology
 State how coercive power is different from hegemony
3.1 Hegemony
Hegemony comes from the Greek ‗‗hegemon‘‘ meaning ‗‗leader‘‘ or ‗‗dominance over‘‘. The
Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci developed the concept of cultural hegemony out of Karl
Marx‘s theory of capitalism, that the dominant ideology of society reflects the beliefs and
interests of the privileged ruling class. Gramsci argued that consent to the rule of the dominant
group is achieved by the spread of ideologies—beliefs, assumptions, and values—through social
institutions like courts, the media, schools among others. These institutions socialize their
members into the norms, values, and beliefs of the group. The group in turn controls the less
privilege in the society. Hegemony is a term that is typically used by people who are influenced
by Marxist ideas. Marx, Gramsci and others believed that the dominant classes in a society have
many ways to keep the other classes and groups down; and the best way to do this is through
hegemony. Hegemony is a means of maintaining social order without using force. If hegemony
is achieved, the oppressed classes obey the dominant classes not because they are forced to, but
because they believe that it is right to do so. In this way, the oppressed classes ‗participate in
their own oppression‘ because they believe that they deserve to have less power than the
dominant classes.
Gramsci developed the concept of cultural hegemony in an effort to explain why the worker-led
revolution that Marx predicted in the previous century had not come to pass. Central to Marx‘s
theory of capitalism was the belief that the destruction of this economic system was built into the
system itself since capitalism is premised on the exploitation of the working class by the ruling
class. Marx reasoned that workers could only take so much economic exploitation before they
would rise up and overthrow the ruling class. However, this revolution did not happen on a mass
scale. Developed nations which lend to poorer nation hope to determine political outcomes and
trade decisions thus establishing hegemony over the poorer nations. As well as the dominance of
one group or nation over others, hegemony is also the term for the leading group or nation itself.
Cultural hegemony is most strongly manifested when those ruled by the dominant group come to
believe that the economic and social conditions of their society are natural and inevitable. Those
ruled do not see it that the condition is created by people with a vested economic, social and
political interest. Gramsci‘s analysis of hegemony involves an analysis of the ways in which
such capitalist ideas are circulated and acknowledged as commonsensical and normal.
Hegemonic discourse, then, is a way of talking about things that supports hegemony and makes
it seem as if the current social order is inevitable and natural. Hegemony occurs when the
developed nations inevitably and naturally think they should be on top and that any development
in other parts of the world must proceed along lines that are acceptable to the developed nation.
Simply put hegemonic discourse, is a way of talking about things that supports hegemony and
makes it seem as if the current social order is inevitable and natural. The belief in a society that
certain ethnic group should be the ruling group is hegemony. Perhaps the dominant groups have
come to be or remain in this position by shutting others up, by manipulating them, or by doing
something else reprehensible.
For Gramsci, hegemony means one must overthrow the powerful or the hegemonic. The less
privileged in the society have to be conscious of the domination from the privileged and
consciously act to be free of such domination. For Foucault, every relation is open to a counter
conduct--that is through the cultivation of a reflexive subjectivity it is possible to alter power
relations through the creation of new knowledge and practices. Gramsci and Foucault have
different views about truth in the world. While Gramsci maintains the stand that there is truth in
the world--a better way to organize society that is not capitalism, Foucault says there is no truth
in the world; there are only regimes of truth produced through practice and discourse.
Hegemony plays out when the dominant group dictates what happens in the society through
force or ideology. In other words, the dominant group calls ―all the shots‖ in terms of both
material/economic relations and beliefs. The ruling class dominates the ruled through hegemony-
-that is the culture or beliefs of society. Power radiated outwards from the powerful to control the
masses.
Discourses and power discussed in unit 4, according to Foucault, are intimately tied together and
distributed: In most societies, there are manifold relations of power which permeate, characterise
and constituted the social body, and these relations of power cannot themselves be established,
consolidated nor implemented without the production, circulation and functioning of a discourse.
Power is employed and exercised through a net-like organisation. And not only do individuals
circulate between threads; they are always in the position of simultaneously undergoing and
exercising this power. In other words, individuals are the vehicles of power. Discourse circulates
though individual practice and beliefs.
Self-Assessment Exercises
How is coercive discourse different from hegemonic discourse?
3.2 hegemonic structures in Discourse
Stereotypes in written text and spoken texts are pointers to hegemony. The long held belief
pertaining to a thing/entity in a society used as a basis for further acts and practices are ways
through which hegemony persist in the society. The dominant in the society may not want the
dominated to question some long held beliefs. For example in Nigeria, there some derogatory
terms used to refer to some ethnic groups, or there is the belief that a particular group should be
the ones calling the shots. People over the years have believed in all these stereotypes without
questioning. The ruling class would say they deserve their wealth. The ruling class distributes
popular ideas beyond narrow class interests. Related to the Nigeria example above is Gramsci‘s
example of hegemonic discourse in which coal mine owners in Sicily refused to give the workers
Sundays off—working them seven days a week—because, supposedly, the workers would only
get drunk on their day off. The focus is on the workers and not only the employers, similar to van
Dijk‘s polarisation model where positive things belong to ‗us‘ and negative things belong to
‗them‘. ‗Us‘, in this case are the dominant group and the ‗them‘ are the dominated. It is also
important to note that the dominated help to strengthen the grip of the ruling class on them,
through believing that that is how things should remain.
Connected to hegemonic discourses is ideology, we have discussed discourse and ideology in
unit 3. To refresh our memory, an ideology is the set of beliefs that a society accepts as true and
normal. Ideology is the false story the ruling class concocts to explain its wealth and power. As
explained above, the ruling class ideology often insists that the social order cannot change: it
must be the way it is. Domination is not carried out through using physical weapons like gun to
subdue people; it is carried out most times subtly and covertly through words. It can be through
enactment of policies that will favour the ruling class. From this discussion, we can classify
hegemony. For instance cultural hegemony would posit that the culture of the ruling class is
better that that of the ruled, the ruling class would then want the ruled to accept it that way.
Access to natural and material resources belongs to the ruling class. We shall in the next section
discuss more on the types of hegemony. To Gramsci, hegemony implies leadership. Leadership
is based on the concept of the governed. The different class of people in the society, apart from
the ruling class there are other groups too who have access to power (who control economic,
political, and social structures), but may not have full access like the ruling class. In other words,
other classes may not have identical aims with the ruling class but they have common aims.
3.3 Types of hegemony
Three different types of hegemonies exist; this is according to patterns or methods taken by the
hegemonist to maintain hegemony. They are cultural hegemony, strength hegemony and
institution hegemony. We now take them in turns:
Cultural hegemony refers to domination or rule maintained through ideological or cultural

means. It is usually achieved through social institutions, which allow those in power to strongly
influence the values, norms, ideas, expectations, worldview, and behavior of the rest of society.
Cultural hegemony functions by framing the worldview of the ruling class, and the social and
economic structures that embody it, as just, legitimate, and designed for the benefit of all, even
though these structures may only benefit the ruling class. This kind of power is distinct from rule
by force, as in a military dictatorship, because it allows the ruling class to exercise authority
using the "peaceful" means of ideology and culture. No man wants to live in the shadow of
another one' power, while on the other hand man never gives up the ambition of influencing and
even controlling his fellow countrymen. Strength hegemony is the traditional hegemony. It
emphasizes the importance of force and power by a stronger country. The stronger country
conquers and dominates the weaker through being in charge of the weaker country‘s territory and
politics to maintain the hegemony, the stronger country develops, maintains and makes use of
their military and economic power. The third type of hegemony—institution hegemony is the
way and strategy to consolidate existing hegemony structure through designing, maintaining and
enforcing international institution. Institution hegemony depends on strength hegemony.
Institution hegemony can manifest in practices of institutions like the media, the court, schools
and so on. In these institutions, the members have ideologies which guide them; they often belief
that their ideas are the best. In the institution too, there may be groups whose ideas and opinions
are sacrosanct.
There is also world hegemony where some developed nations believe it is their right to be the
dominant group. For example there is speculation that China wants to be the greatest power, a
position the USA has occupied for some time now. The dominant world power would not want
to be overthrown and would do everything possible to the preservation of the system. At the
same time, the hegemon is responsible for the formulation of the rules that govern interaction
within the international system. In every society, there are manifold relations of power which
permeate, characterise and constituted the social body, and these relations of power cannot
themselves be established, consolidated nor implemented without the production, accumulation,
circulation and functioning of a discourse. Individuals circulate beliefs, practices and ideas
through which power is manifested. What this means is that discourse circulates though
individual practice and beliefs.
Describe any form of hegemonic discourse in the state where you live
4.0 Conclusion
Hegemony exists and thrives when people do not question certain repressive rules and norms.
True democracy can empower people and free them from the shackles of hegemony. Therefore,
the social structures should be structured in a way to prevent the emergence of dictatorship by
any group and ensure the sharing power of all citizens.
5.0 Summary
This unit has looked at what hegemony is, and explained hegemony to be ‗domination by
consent‘. Hegemony is spread through spoken and written discourse.

Analyse any speech of Donald Trump the USA president, try and see if you can find hegemonic
structures in the speech.

Abercrombie, Nicholas, Turner, Bryan S. (1978). "The Dominant Ideology Thesis". The British
Journal of Sociology. 29 (2): 149–70. Doi:10:2307/589886
Boulding, Kenneth E. (1990). Three Faces of Power. Newbury Park: Sage Publications
International Educational and Professional Publisher.
Flank, Lenny (2007). Hegemony and Counter-Hegemony: Marxism, Capitalism, and Their
Relation to Sexism, Racism, Nationalism, and Authoritarianism. St. Petersburg, Florida:
Red and Black Publishers.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selection from the Prison Notes of Antonio Gramsci. New York:
International Publishers.
Gramsci, A. (1992), Buttigieg, Joseph A (ed.), Prison notebooks, New York City: Columbia
University Press.
Van Dijk (1988). Ideology: A multidisciplinary Approach. London, SAGE Publications.
MODULE 4: CURRENT TRENDS IN THE ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE 2
UNIT 1: COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION ANALYSIS
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OBJECTIVES
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Computer Mediated Communication
3.3 Domains of Computer Mediated Communication Analysis
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
By now you must have realized that advancement in Information Communication Technology
(henceforth, ICT) has ushered in new forms of communication among people and groups of the
world. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration if one says that ICT has not only transformed the world
into a global village, but has affected the way we speak, write and interact. Today, people send
messages via email, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp and so many other social network
channels which require the use of computer or other electronic devices. These ICT media have in
turn affected the way people structure words, phrases and sentences in different modes of
communication. As a student in an Open Distance Learning (ODL) institution you often need to
interact with your lecturers, course mates, and other colleagues through your phones, computers
or other IT devices. You would therefore have observed that the way you write via these devices
differ from the way you are expected to write your essay in class or during examination, for
example. In this unit therefore, we shall be examining different aspects of CMC. We shall
attempt to describe the term computer mediated communication and also examine the domains of
Computer Mediated Communication.
2.0 Objectives
 define computer communication,

 discuss Computer Communication Analysis
 identify and explain domains of Computer Communication Analysis
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 Computer Mediated Communication
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) is a process by which people create; exchange and
receive information using networked telecommunications systems that aid encoding, transmitting
and decoding of messages (Luppicini, 2007). The term is also sometimes used to refer to other
electronic means of communication such as text messaging via mobile telephones. According to
Baker and Ellece (2011), CMC are different forms of interaction such as email, chat rooms,
instant messaging, blogging and commenting that occur between people who are using
computers.
A distinction can be made between synchronous CMC and asynchronous CMC. Synchronous
CMC refers to computer mediated communication which requires participants to be online
simultaneously. In other words, communication takes place in instantaneous ‗real-time‘. These
interactions could be in form of text based online chat, computer, audio or video conferencing,
etc. Conversely, asynchronous CMC involves ongoing interactions where there may be long
breaks between communicative ‗turns‘. This form of CMC could be in form of emails,
discussion forum and mailing lists, etc. which need no immediate response and where
participants are not necessarily online at the same time. CMC can occur in local area networks
(LANs) or via the Internet. One of the advantages of CMC is that it is a highly interactive mode
of communication. It provides for complex processes of interaction between participants. It
combines the permanent form of written communication with speed and dynamism of the spoken
communication. In addition, the speed advantage of CMC particularly has a far reaching effect
for users because it is easy to reach a mass audience in a fast way through this medium of
communication.

1. What do you understand by Computer Mediated Communication
2. Identify some aspects of Computer Mediated Discourse which make it different from the
more traditional modes of communication.
3.3 Domains of Computer Mediated Communication Analysis
The growing and expanding use of Computer-mediated Communication has expanded the areas
of its study. Beyond the software and hardware aspects of CMC which has attracted researchers‘
interests over the years because of its relevance as a mode of communication in modern day
technologically driven world, the social aspect of CMC as a medium of interaction has also
shown significant scholarly interest in the analysis of CMC. The Internet CMC has aided global
communication significantly. CMC has attracted research interest over the years because of the
emergence of new discourse features of its IT mode of communication. Studies in CMC consider
how participants make use of various affordances in order to effectively communicate (e.g. the
use of emoticons) and maintain relationships, how aspects of discourse like turn taking are
managed and how language is used to construct online identities, including anonymous
identities. In addition, some studies focus on new ways of teaching and learning through CMC in
for instance, second language or English for Academic Purposes (EAP) environments and oral
characteristics of computer mediated communication. Research in CMC has also been carried
out in the areas of the discourse of social media as a form of CMC, the interface between
conversation analysis and CMC interaction, gender and computer mediated communication,
computer mediated communication and workplace interactions, computer mediated
communication among others. Different methodological approaches which could be applied to
the study of CMC include content analysis, discourse analysis, pragmatics analysis, critical
approaches to mention just a few.
Mention some areas in which Computer Mediated Communication studies are being carried out
in today‘s IT world.
5.0 Conclusion
The world today is largely technologically driven. In this wise, so many aspects of life have been
affected including modes of communication and the structuring of language. One of the areas
this could be seen is in written language form which today reflects changes due to the constraints
placed on its production by CMC platforms. It is not surprising therefore that research interests
in CMC have also expanded to include areas which were initially not considered relevant to
studies in CMC.
6.0 Summary
In this Unit, we defined computer mediated communication. In addition, we discussed computer
mediated analysis and also looked at different areas in which computer mediated analysis have
been applied in view of the fast growing influence and reach of computer mediated
communication in today‘s IT world.
1. Discuss the differences between synchronous and asynchronous computer mediated
communication.
2. Identify and briefly discussed two areas in which computer mediated analysis is being
applied.
Tannen, D., Hamilton, H.E. & Schiffrin, D. (Eds.). (2015). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis.
UK: Wiley Blackwell.
UNIT 2: COMPUTER-MEDIATED DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OBJECTIVES
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 What is Computer Mediated Discourse?
3.3 Computer Mediated Discourse Analysis
3.5 Discourse Structure and Meaning in Computer Mediated Discourse

4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
In Unit 1, we mentioned the fact that language use in Computer Mediated Communication
platform differs somewhat from other traditional modes of interaction due to the constraints
which CMC places on the structuring of language in use. It should be noted nonetheless, that
similar to other areas of social life, language is central to the interactions that take place on CMC
platforms. In this Unit, we shall discuss the nature of discourse in relation to CMC. In addition,
we shall define Computer Mediated Discourse Analysis (CMDA) and also consider discourse
structure and meaning in Computer Mediated Discourse study.
2.0 Objectives
 define computer mediated discourse,

 discuss Computer mediated discourse Analysis
 Explain discourse Structure and Meaning in Computer Mediated Discourse
3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 What is Computer Mediated Discourse?
As noted in unit 1, the technologically driven world has brought with it new ways of
communicating and interacting in human society. As a member of the modern day society, I am
sure you are daily exposed to the use of IT devices and you will agree that these tools have made
information dissemination generally easier and seamless. However, the flip side of it is that
computer based form of interaction is also continuously throwing up new ways of structuring and
using language in human interactions. Consequently, the initial textual form of computer
mediated communication has also expanded and today it is being supplemented by innovations
in graphical, audio/video and other multiple modes of communication. Herring (2001) defines
Computer Mediated Discourse (CMD) as ‗the communication produced when human beings
interact with one another by transmitting messages via networked computers‘. The term
computer in this case covers any form of digital communication device. This definition, therefore
delimits CMD to communication produced via the use of IT devices such as computers, laptops,
phones, among others only.
Explain in your own words what you understand by Computer Mediated Discourse.
3.3 Computer Mediated Discourse Analysis (CMDA)
Computer Mediated Discourse (CMD) is a specialization within Computer Mediated

Communication (CMC) research. Its proponents of CMD apply discourse analysis methods to
the study of language and language use in computer mediated communication. According to
Herring (2004), in the broadest sense, any analysis of online behavior grounded in empirical,
textual observations is computer-mediated discourse analysis (CMDA). CMDA applies methods
adapted from language-focused disciplines such as linguistics, communication, and rhetoric to
the analysis of computer-mediated communication. It may be supplemented by surveys,
interviews, ethnographic observation, or other methods; it may also involve qualitative or
quantitative analysis; but a major research focus of CMDA is the analysis of logs of verbal
interaction (characters, words, utterances, messages, exchanges, threads, archives, etc.).
CMDA could be used to study micro-level linguistic phenomena such as online word-formation
processes, lexical choice, sentence structure and language switching among bilingual speakers.
At the same time, it could also be used to address macro-level discursive expressions of
coherence, community, gender equity and identity among others. Research in the language of
CMC first began in the 1980s and by 1991 it began to get the attention of language scholars.
Initial studies of the language of CMC focused on aspects such as typography, orthography and
word formation processes in CMC. Current areas of active studies in CMD however have
narrowed down to language use at the level and above the utterance. In addition, CMD also
focuses more on discourse in interactive CMC as opposed to monologue or broadcast.
Herring and Androutsopoulos (2015) have identified the following areas of studies in CMD
which have drawn scholarly enquiries. One of these areas is studies in CMD which have
attempted to classify it as either writing (in this case, typed) or speech. Some other studies have
studied the synchronous and asynchronous nature of CMD. In other words, these studies have
examined the different language uses of language in different kinds of CMC such as email and
chat modes of the Internet for example. Some other studies of CMD have examined language use
based on genres and discourse types. Some domains of CMC such as chat rooms, instant
messaging, Web forums, etc. are conversational in nature; blogs take the form of journalistic
commentary and diary mode, scam letters take up the ‗appeal letter‘ mode, expository text such
as encyclopedia entries on Wikipedia are constructed and discussed as ‗Talk‘. In addition, other
studies in this area focus on the external contexts (physical, cultural and subcultural, etc) in
which CMD is situated; the temporal structure of the group; the computer system infrastructure;
the purpose of communication; and the characteristics of the group and its members. Another
basis of research classification of CMD types is the medium.
CMD analysis could therefore apply any of the four domains or levels of language, ranging
structure to meaning, interaction, and social behavior. Structural study could include the special
use of typography, orthography, novel word formations, and sentence structure on this platform.
The study of the meaning of words, utterances (e.g., speech acts), among others is another area in
which CMD analysis could be directed. At the interactional level of analysis, turn-taking, topic
development, and other means of negotiating interactive exchanges are areas that CMD research
could focus on. Finally, at the social level, linguistic expressions of play, conflict, power, and
group membership over multiple exchanges are areas where CMD study is relevant. One area in
which CMD studies is also generating growing research interest is in the study of its multimodal
nature. This is due to that fact that the CMC domain of interaction is becoming increasingly
multimodal in nature as other semiotic resources are being incorporated onto its platform for
meaning making activities, in addition to text.
Briefly explain what you understand by Computer Mediated Discourse Analysis (CMDA).
3.5 Discourse Structure and Meaning in Computer Mediated Discourse

Computer mediated language has structural features which are influenced by different factors
ranging from limitation of time, technical limits on message length, and the need for speed in
Short Message Service (SMS) for example, to time, professional consideration and formality in
other asynchronous platforms such as emails which allow for more editing. At the sentence level,
Doring (2014: 9) notes that ―SMS communication allows for a reasonable use of syntactic and
lexical short forms, which save character space or touches of the handset keys, as compared with
using the full forms of words‖. It has been observed that language users prefer simple sentence
structures in SMS communication. A common feature of language in SMS is the use of written
sound of words and code mixing. Sometimes, the SMS syntactic and lexical choices are similar
to a child language. Indeed, some scholars have observed that the discourse produced on this
platform appears like the child‘s. For example, a child expresses her/his feelings through simple
sentence structures for example, daddy home for ‗daddy is home‘; want biscuits for ‗I want
biscuits‘, etc. See a similar characteristic in a chat drawn from a social media platform:
Speaker A: Evening. How?
Speaker B: Great. Good God
Speaker A: Meeting tomorrow. See you then
Speaker B: Noted. Thanks
The synchronous platforms of CMC sometimes offer opportunities for users to be creative in the
use of typography, spelling, word formation processes and syntax among others. Therefore,
CMC users sometimes produce sentences which show deviations from standard sentence
structures in form of elided elements, incorrect capitalization and punctuation, sentence
fragments, etc. In addition, language users in synchronous CMD such as Facebook, Whatsapp
and Twitter chats, often break up single-utterance messages into multiple messages sometimes to
avoid exceeding imposed message length and sometimes to approximate a faster, more speech-
like pace or in order to hold the floor. In contrast, asynchronous messages tend to be made up of
more than one utterance and so there is possibility that they will have internal structure. The
examples below demonstrate the differences which could be easily seen in synchronous and
asynchronous discourse structures. The first example is drawn from a synchronous Whatsapp
chat while the second example is drawn from an asynchronous email communication.
1. Kenneth: Good afternoon Tolu
Tolu: Hello Kenneth
Tolu: For our discussion
Tolu: let‘s do it tomorrow
Tolu: still trying to think thru
2. Dear Ada,
With research communication so disrupted by the pandemic, we have seen extraordinary

uptake of Kajekayo promo, with over 5,000 participants signing up for free access.
We have therefore extended our free upgrades to help more participants continue to
communicate their work and maximize impact potential.
You can sign up in less than one minute.
The email shows a two-move schema of promo messages posted to customer mailing lists. Thus,
(1) it expresses views and (2) serves as invitation to potential participants. In some other emails
such as those found in academic environments, the discourse structure could show a three-way
schema of (1) link to earlier message (2) express views and (3) appeal to other participants. The
example below demonstrates this:
Dear Prof Israel,
Sorry it took so long to respond to your mail. I have had challenges accessing my yahoo mail for
some time now and I only discovered yesterday that you have made efforts to contact me on
editing matters. I have promised Helen that I will get the proofs ready by this new week. I do
hope other writers will be able to submit their contributions by the end of the month. I will talk to
you on Friday next week to now the progress on the book publication.
Sincerely,
Adetoun
We are however not saying that synchronous interactions totally lack structure. Indeed, Herring
(2006) proposed a jointly constructed, seven-move schema for real time instant messaging,
particularly for familiar interactants:
1. Greeting – greeting
2. Formulaic inquiry – reply
3. Question/topic initiation 1 – response 1
4. Question/topic initiation 2…n – response 2 …n
5. Closing initiation – (response)
6. Arrange to talk later – (response)
7. Leave-taking – leave-taking
Briefly explain the nature of discourse commonly produced on synchronous platforms of CMD.
4.0 Conclusion
The discourse produced on computer mediated communication platforms reflects different types
of constraints such as time and speed. These and other factors influence the ways in which
language is used in this space. In additions, other factors such as whether the CMC is
synchronous or asynchronous also influence the way language is used.
5.0 Summary
In this Unit, we discussed Computer Mediated Discourse. In addition, we examined Computer
mediated Discourse Analysis. Finally, we also looked at the discourse structure and meaning-
making activities in computer mediated discourse platform. From the discussions, it could be
observed that computer mediated discourse demonstrates influences of its technologically based
domain of production and use.

Discuss the characteristics of CMD as speech and writing

Crystal, D. (2004). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D., Hamilton, H.E. & Schiffrin, D. (Eds.). (2015). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis.
UK: Wiley Blackwell.
MODULE 4: CURRENT TRENDS IN THE ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE 2: MEDIATED

DISCOURSE DOMAINS
UNIT 3
Contents
8.0 Introduction
9.0 Unit Objectives
10.0 Main Content
10.1 From single semiotic resource to Multimodality
10.2 Multimodal nature of discourse
10.3 Multimodal Discourse Analysis
11.0 Conclusion
12.0 Summary
1.0 introduction
In previous modules, you progressively learnt about discourse, discourse analysis and critical
discourse analysis. The modules also encouraged you to raise questions on the definitions you
encountered as well as help you to give your own working definition of the concepts discussed.
This unit gives a perspective to current trends of doing discourse analysis. Try as much as
possible to read the references at the end of the unit as they will help you to understand better
what this unit is all about.
2.0 unit objectives
1. explain a monomodal text

2. explain how semiotic elements in a multimodal text jointly make meanings
3. define multimodal discourse analysis
4. say the differences between a monomodal text and a multimodal one
3.0 Main content
3.1 From single semiotic resource to Multimodality
Previously, language was the central and only full means for representation and communication;
and the resources of language were available for such representation. For instance, can you think
of talking to somebody without using any part of your body (especially facial expression) either
consciously or unconsciously in the speech event? This shows that in communication, language
has not been totally free of other semiotic elements in communication. In recent times with the
ubiquity of social media platforms, the dominance of monomodality has begun to reverse.
Newspapers‘ present information using, words, pictures, different font size, different fonts,
different colours etc, all these are semiotic resources which show the use of multiple modes in
the dissemination of information. In television too, we see different display of graphics in the
transmission of messages. Billboards are not left out in the deployment of different semiotic
elements in advertising; from digitalism, moving images, colourful displays, advertising has
moved from what it was to what it is at present. Van Leeuwen (2005) reveals how advertising
discourses employ combinations of signifiers such as dress, colour, smell and so on to construct
and sell lifestyle identities that mask mass consumerism. It follows that meanings can be
expressed in different semiotic modes, that is, expression of meaning is now more multimodal
than monomodal. Kress and van Leeuwen describe the concept of multimodality. They challenge
their readers to consider the varied forms of meaning making that extend beyond language and
enhance the semiotic process. Van Leeuwen has pursued and contributed to laying the
foundations for the two main directions in multimodality:
 exploring the use and mapping the meaning-making potential of individual semiotic
resources, and
 studying the ways they interact to create meaning in multimodal communication.
Teleconferencing and zoom are platforms used by business associates, academic institutions for
communication among people from different locations. Each platform has its own affordance for
making meaning.
The first point above focuses on the meaning-making potential of material resources (e.g. colour,
texture, sound and kinetic design/movement and their potential to partake in or become modes
such as language and visual design, that is, into semiotic resources that are subject to wider use
and more established conventions. One of van Leeuwen‘s goals in the second direction is to
understand the relationship between semiotic technology (i.e. technology for making meaning
such as office software, sound-recording tools, pen and paper, etc.) and changes in the
(co)deployment of different semiotic resources and in the discourses that govern their use in
specific social contexts. Kress and Van Leeuwen (2006 [1996]) point out two main types of
process that are recognizable in visual representations, borrowing Arnheim‘s (1974) concepts
‗volume‘ and ‗vector‘. Narrative/dynamic processes include one or more vectorial relations
between volumes, or visual entities perceived as distinct (e.g. two people depicted holding hands
and/or looking at each other, where the hands and directions of their gazes form vectors).
Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001) present the idea that multimodal communication creates
meaning through each of four strata:
1. Discourse, ―socially constructed knowledge(s) of (some aspects of) reality‖ (p. 4);
2. Design, the realization of discourses through various semiotic resources;
3. Production, the material articulation of a semiotic event or artifact;
4. Distribution, ―the technical ‗re-coding‘ of semiotic products and events, for purposes of
recording […] and/or distribution‖ (p.21).
The concepts of expression, production and distribution draw attention to the role materiality and
technologies for producing/recording and distributing multimodal texts play both in creating
meaning in specific semiotic practices as well as in the gradual transformation of these practices
through the emergence of new modes and social relations.
Van Leeuwen (2013), for example, argues both that ―the discourses that need the scrutiny of a
critical eye are now overwhelmingly multimodal and mediated by digital systems that take
multimodality entirely for granted‖ (p. 5) and that ―racist stereotypes persist in visual rather than
verbal texts, and in comic strips, advertisements and other forms of popular culture rather than in
more factual and ―highbrow‖ texts‖ (p. 2). Van Leeuwen‘s approach to studying the relationship
between semiotic practice and semiotic technology is also a dynamic one as it explores: how
resources provided by the technology interact with other semiotic resources in the unfolding of
multimodal events (e.g. gesture and speech in slideshow-supported presentations); how their
availability and presentation within the technology as well as their use change over time; and
how they vary across and are shaped by and themselves (re)shape diverse social practices.
Van Leeuwen has also emphasized the role semiotic software plays in reshaping broader
semiotic practices, thereby highlighting problems in the theorization of these practices. One such
practice in which Van Leeuwen (2008b) is interested is what he terms ―new writing‖. Unlike
―old writing‖, he argues, new writing follow the logic of space, and in this resembles visual
design and consequently blurs the boundary between language and image. New writing presents
ideas through words and/or images, but achieves cohesion and coherence in their presentation
less through verbal syntax and rhetorical organization and more, and sometimes exclusively,
through visual design elements such as layout and consistent colour schemes. New writing is
also controlled by and learned not from style manuals and explicit teaching, but through rules
built into semiotic technologies such as office software, where one‘s spelling can be
automatically corrected and bullet lists automatically aligned, have their first word capitalized,
and so on. (See further Djonov & Van Leeuwen, 2013, 2014)
Explain the advantage multimodal text has over monomodal text.
3.2 Multimodal nature of discourse
In real life people communicate using one or more semiotic resources. This means that
discourses range from the use of one to the use of many semiotic resources. A single semiotic
resource in communication can be done through the use of word of mouth, through hand
gestures, through nodding, through laughing, through scribbling something on a sheet of paper
and so on. But in reality, it is discovered that communication is done through the use of more
than one semiotic resource. For example, a teacher in the class teaches and imparts knowledge
through many semiotic resources. He uses words of mouth, writes on the board and gesticulates
with his hands, and also, even uses facial expressions like smiling to pass across information.
Even the hospitals, doctor-patient interaction involves the use of multimodal elements. The
billboards we see on the streets mostly display different elements in the advertisement of goods
and services. Beginning from image placement, different colours, fount sizes etc, note that the
use of each semiotic element in advertising is for a purpose. This means that within the field of
discourse not only the ‗purely‘ linguistic content communicate, but also sign language,
dramatization, or the so-called ‗bodily hexis‘ is included (Bordieu, 1990). It can thus rightly be
said that discourse is multi-modal because it uses more than one semiotic system and performs
several functions at the same time.
Explain the discourse activity involved in teleconferencing
3.3 Multimodal Discourse Analysis
Multimodal discourse analysis is an approach to discourse which focuses on how meaning is
made through the use of multiple modes of communication as opposed to just one mode. In 3.1,
we saw that communication nowadays is increasingly becoming multimodal, because of the
complex nature of knowledge impartation, and because of the modal affordance of new discourse
platforms. To study how these multiple semiotic resources jointly communicate, we need to have
knowledge on multimodal discourse analysis. Much of the work in multimodal discourse
analysis draws from Halliday‘s social semiotics approach to language, a view that considers
language as one among a number of semiotic resources such as (gesture, images, music) that
people use to communicate, or to make meaning with one another.
Halliday (2009a) describes three types of social meanings, or functions that are drawn on
simultaneously when language is used. Halliday says that the ideational function of language
focuses on what the text is about, the interpersonal shows the relationship between participants in
the discourse, then the textual meaning shows how the message in the text is organized)
(Paltridge 2012). Either monomodal or multimodal texts all simultaneously interweave these
three meta-functions in the expressing meaning.
Multimodal discourse analysis considers how texts draw on modes of communication such as
pictures, film, video, images and sound in combination with words to make meaning.
Multimodal discourse analysis of say an advert will consider how the advert is designed, and
how semiotic tools such as color, framing, focus and positioning elements contribute to the
making of meaning in the advert. Multimodal discourse is useful in that it both establishes a
‗proximity‘ to the events and engages people in the events. It removes the temporal distance
between people and things, and brings images and experiences into people‘s homes. This
illustrates what watching events on a television, videos on social media platforms do to people.
The multimodal elements move the viewer from a position of ‗an observer‘ to a position of ‗a
witness‘ of the events. Multimodal discourse analysis does not just rely on words as meaning
making resource, but on other semiotic modes such as images, colours and so on accompanying
the words.
According to Kress and van Leeuwen (1996), the social relationship between an image and its
viewer is strongly influenced by whether the subject in the image established eye contact with
the viewer or does not. Each of possibilities could be seen as an example of mood where the eye
contact could suggest a demand, whereas no eye contact might suggest an offer.
The point of view, or perspective, of the image is also relevant. For example, a horizontal image
suggests involvement as the viewer is on the same level as the subject of the image. A high angle
shot might suggest superiority and low angle shot may suggest respect. These are clues which
can guide you if you are doing multimodal analysis of any text. The camera shot of an image is
also important. Horizontal shot suggests that the reader is on the same level as the subject of the
image. The layout and the placement of the image is also significant in that they each convey a
certain information values well as communicate salience of the message to the reader.
Doing Multimodal discourse analysis is not very easy because it takes so much time and it can be
quite technical. Multimodal analysis less often looks at readers‘ or viewers‘ readings of texts.
Multimodal Discourse Analysis is very useful to researchers interested in the application of
systemic functional linguistics to media studies, discourse analysis and cognitive linguistics
Discuss the major different between a monomodal text and a multimodal one
Do a multimodal discourse analysis of any political advertisement of your choice.
4 Conclusion
This unit outlines what multimodal texts are and how they are different from monomodal ones.
Multimodal texts are made up of more than one semiotic resource. It is obvious that
communication in different platforms is increasingly becoming multimodal in their presentation.
Most semiotic resources in multimodal texts all jointly communicate ideas to the reader.
5 Summary
Monomodal text focuses on one semiotic mode, such as language for communication. Most
communication are doing not just through one mode but with multimodal resources.
6 TMA
Explain the visual semiotic resources involved in Whatsapp messages
Analyse any Whatsapp video of your choice
Djonov, E. and Zhao, S. (2014) Critical Multimodal Studies of Popular Discourse. New York:
Routledge. pp. 1-14.
Machin, D. (2010) Analysing Popular Music: image, sound, text. London: Sage.
Paltridge, Brian (2012). Discourse analysis. 2nd ed., London, Bloomsbury academic
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (2006) Reading Images: The Grammar of VisualDesign. 2nd ed.
London: Routledge.
Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001).Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary
Communication.
Smith, B.A., Tan, S., Podlasov, A. and O'Halloran, K.L.(2011) Analysing multimodality in an
interactive digital environment: software as a meta-semiotic tool. Social Semiotics, 21/3,
359-380
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (1996/2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design.
London: Routledge.
MODULE 4 UNIT 4
UNIT 4 MULTIMODAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND SOCIAL SEMIOTICS
Contents
15.0 Introduction
17.0 Main Content
17.1 from CDA to Multimodality
17.2 Social semiotic
18.0 Conclusion
19.0 Summary
4.0 Introduction
In the previous modules and units we have learnt that most discourses are multimodal in nature,
and to unravel the meaning of the joint modes use in communication, one should have
knowledge of the principles and tenets of multimodal method of analyzing discourse(s). in this
unit, we are going to further explain how most communication including those done on social
media platforms deploy more than one mode in communication.
5.0 unit objectives
at the end of this unit, you should be able to:
link CDA with Multimodality
explain what makes a text critical

explain the orientations of social semiotics
6.0 main content
3.1 From CDA to Multimodality
Critical discourse analysis focuses on the processes and products of discourse and their impact
on social practices. Although its theoretical framework is eclectic and interdisciplinary, critical
discourse analysis has for the most part focused on language and ignored other semiotic modes.
We know that in real life and in natural communication setting people hardly use one mode for
communication. For instance, if you are discussing with a relation in face-to-face
communication, in addition to your word of mount, you are also likely to use facial gestures,
gesticulate with your hands and so on. In analyzing your encounter with your relation will it be
fair to do just the verbal analysis? The answer is no. the gestural is also important in an analysis.
Even now, the ubiquity in online social platforms has made it unlikely for one to communicate
using only one mode. Take the whatsapp communication for instance, most messages are sent
with the combination of many semiotic resources like a combination of words and emojis, a
combination of videos and words, a combination of words and voice notes, the list is endless.
The sender of a message will combine the semiotic resources s/he feels would better send across
the meaning to the audience. This is the reason the Birmingham meeting sought to remedy this
by instigating a discussion about the interface between social semiotics and critical discourse
analysis, putting multimodality on the agenda as essential to the practices of discourse analysts
and social theorists. Semioticians are interested in modes of communication other than language.
This does not of course exclude language. Semiotic resources include all and everything that can
be deployed in communication; from words, pictures, videos, paintings, colours and so on. The
focus of semiotics includes also how language and other modes of communication combine in
multimodal texts and communicative events.
Example 1
A verbal text to Mr A through the Whatsapp platform that:
1. A woman is crying with her hands on her head
This information occurs through one mode, the verbal mode.
Example 2
A picture to Mr. A, after some minutes of a woman crying with her hands on her head
Figure 1: Source: Whatsapp post (2018)
Figure 1 is a multimodal text which clearly streamlines the meaning of example 1 which broadly
says ‗a woman is crying with her hands on her head‘. Figure 1, expands the meaning further
through the woman‘s facial expression, dressing and so on.
Example 3
Figure 2 Source: Whatsapp post (2018)
Figure 2 is a multimodal text just like figure 1, but has more semiotic resources in it
signification. You can see words, emojis, ellipsis, human image, facial expression, multiple
exclamation mark.
Compare and contrast communication using only language and communication using multiple
modes.
3.2 Critical SOCIAL SEMIOTICS (CSS)
Some schools of semiotics derive largely from philosophy and cultural studies, others have a
firm root in linguistics. What this means is that semiotics or the study of semiotics is
multidisciplinary and can be applied in disciplines like mathematics (O‘Halloran (2005) and
science (Lemke, 1998). The ‗critical‘ in ‗critical social semiotics‘ indicates that social semiotics
intersect with critical discourse analysis. In previous modules, we have pointed out the adjective
‗critical‘ in CDA focuses on the unearthing of biting social issues and how they can be addressed
through language. ‗Critical‘ in critical social semiotics (CSS) does not stop at description, but
analyses multimodal texts also as playing a vital role in the production, reproduction and
transformation of the social practices that constitute anywhere where people live in. The ‗social‘
in CSS indicates that semioticians are not interested in semiotics for its own sake, but relate
semiotic theory to events and happenings in the real world and apply semiotic analysis to areas
such as education, cross-cultural communication, and any form of mediated communication that
combines multiple modes. Critical social semiotics explores differences among interfaces of
meanings and has as one of its objectives acting on and altering political forces.
Halliday‘s (1978) social semiotic theory (SST) provides the basis for the study of semiotic
resources other than language. In his view, culture is ‗a set of [inter-related] semiotic systems‘.
Culture includes language, images, architecture, music, symbolism, gesture, and any other
semiotic resources that are associated with a particular set of people. The interaction of semiotic
resources either in conversation or any field is known as multimodal analysis or multimodality
(e.g. Jewitt, 2009). Social semiotic theory by Halliday provides a framework for moving beyond
mere discussion of multimodal occurrences to empirical validation of claims through careful
analysis; because SST is concerned with the underlying design (or ‗grammar‘) of semiotic
resources and their associations with one another to create a unified meaning. According to
Halliday, semiotic resources are seen to fulfill four functions: to construe our experience of the
world (experiential meaning); to create logical relations between experiential meanings (logical
meaning), to enact social relations (interpersonal meaning) and to organise meanings into
coherent messages in text (textual meaning). These functions are simultaneously interwoven in
texts. Halliday‘s framework accounts for multiple strands of meaning with semiotic resources
and their underlying systems as tools for meaning-making. Hallidayan theory allows for the
investigation of semantic shifts and metaphorical expansions of meaning which occur as semiotic
resources within a single semiotic resource and across different semiotic resources. Halliday
theory is used in computational approaches and which are currently being developed to advance
the theory and practice of multimodal analysis (O‘Donnell & Bateman, 2005). Soft wares design
informed by systemic functional theory are designed for analysis, search and retrieval of
multimodal semantic patterns (O‘Halloran, Tan, Smith, & Podlasov, 2011; Smith, Tan, Podlasov,
& O‘Halloran, 2011). The software designed can be used to analyse text, images, sound and
videos by annotating media files using choices from the system networks, coded as annotations
and visual overlays. An important aspect of the design of the software,, is the capacity to
integrate the full range of semiotic analyses, across ranks, strata and meta-function, within an
empirically-derived holistic view on communication. The multimodal analyst can develop, test
and apply different theoretical approaches and methodologies to code the analysis. Automated
tools provide further support to users of the software, extending the human capacities for
perception and analysis. Software used in multimodal data analysis provides a visual overview
which makes it possible to detect patterns in complex texts simply from viewing the annotations.
Halliday‘s social semiotic theory is a comprehensive response to Saussure observation of the
need for a holistic approach to the study of language and other sign systems, advocating a
‗science that studies the life of signs within society‘ (Saussure 1974 [1916]: 16). Social semiotic
theory provides powerful theoretical and descriptive resources for the study of meaning in
monomodal and multimodal communication.
How is social semiotic theory different from Discourse Analysis?
7.0 Conclusion
Social semiotic theory focuses on different signifying elements in a particular socio-cultural
environment. Meaning making resources differ from place to place, in other words since there is
not uniformity in meaning making resources , the theory help analyst to describe how elements
in a semiotic ensemble jointly make meaning.
8.0 Summary
This unity points out that Social semiotic theory by Halliday provides a framework for moving
beyond mere discussion of multimodal occurrences to empirical validation of claims through
careful analysis. The theory is a comprehensive response to Saussure‘s remark of the need for a
all-inclusive approach to the study of language and other semiotic resources. The theory is
important in that it is used is used in computational approaches and also for the designing of
software used in analysis.

What do you think is responsible for the development of social semiotic theory by Halliday?
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language

and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2005). Computational and Quantitative Studies: Collected Works of M. A. K.

Halliday (Volume 6). London and New York: Continuum.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2009). Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday (10 Volumes). London & New
York: Continuum.
Jewitt, C. (Ed.). (2009). Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006 [1996]). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design
(2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Machin, D. (2007). Introduction to Multimodal Analysis. London & New York: Hodder Arnold.
O‘Donnell, M., & Bateman, J. (2005). SFL in Computational Contexts: A Contemporary

History. In R. Hasan, C. M. I. M. Matthiessen & J. Webster (Eds.), Continuing Discourse
on Language: Volume 1 (pp. 343-382). London: Equinox.
O‘Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual Images.

London and New York: Continuum.
O‘Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., Smith, B. A., & Podlasov, A. (2011). Multimodal Analysis within an
Interactive Software Environment: Critical Discourse Perspectives. Critical Discourse
Studies, 8(2), 109-125.
Saussure, F. de (1974 [1916]). Course in General Linguistics. (trans. Wade Baskin). London:
Fontana/Collins.
MODULE 4
Unit 5: Multimodal Discourse Analysis and Systemic Functional Linguistics

Contents
22.0 Introduction
24.0 Main Content
24.1 Systemic Functional Linguistics
24.2 The metafunctions of language
3. 3 Different methods of text analysis
25.0 Conclusion
26.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
In previous units you have studied what multimodal discourse analysis is, what its theoretical
focus is and ……., in this unit, you are going to further your knowledge on MDA and Systemic
Functional Linguistics. Pay attention to the points raise in this unit, and make sure you read the
texts included in the reference section
2.0 Unit objectives
Explain Systemic functional linguistics
Explain concepts in systemic functional linguistics
Explain the three language metafunctions
3.0 Main content
3.1 Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL)
Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL) emphasizes the study of language use in context to achieve
social purposes. People use not only language but other semiotic elements to communicate in
different contexts. In these contexts, genres emerge from the language choices that speakers
make according to the social purpose of the text they are producing. According to SFL, each
genre has a specific register. For Halliday and Matthiessen (2014 [1985]), register is the variety
of language used in a specific situation. There are register variations when the situations variates
according to the field or the subject matter of the linguistic situation, the tenor, or who is
involved in the linguistic situation and the relations between the people involved, and the mode,
whether the language is spoken, written, or multimodal. Concepts derived from Halliday‘s theory
SFL have been applied in so many fields of study. For example researchers such as Martin and
Rose (2003) used concepts derived from SFL to analyze qualitative data. Kress & Van Leeuwen
(2001) have used it both for textual and multimodal analysis. In healthcare (Eakin &
Mykhalovskiy, 2002) and journalism (Caldwell, 2009).
3.2 The metafunctions of language
Language is structured into metafunctions that construe three types of meanings simultaneously
(Halliday, 1985, 1994). According to Halliday, the ideational metafunction in language construes
experience/s comprising of two components, the experiential and the logical. The first system is
the thematic structure that expresses the way texts flow, their organization, what is explicit or
implicit in the text, what is new and what is already known, and the cohesiveness and coherence
of the text. The system of expression for ideational meanings is through Transitivity or process
types. Processes comprise three interacting components, (a) the process itself, (b) the participants
in that process and (c) any related circumstantial factors (time, manner or cause). The
participants and processes as components are sorted out in the grammar of the clause, in
Halliday‘s view the clause is the highest in hierarchy in analysis. Thus apart from the interaction
of participants and processes, there is also the mode of reflection, of imposing linguistic order in
our flow of events that can be construed by Transitivity. There are six basic types of Transitivity
processes—material (doing, happening), mental (sensing, thinking), behavioural (biological),
verbal (saying), relational and existential. These processes have actors, beneficiaries,
circumstance and attributes. The system of Transitivity is inherently realized simultaneously with
interpersonal meanings that are realized by the Mood, comprised of the Subject and Finite
elements. The interpersonal metafunction of language encodes interaction between speakers and
shows the social relationship between the interactants or interlocutors.
The system of expression for interpersonal meanings is Mood, containing a nominal type
element that is the Subject, and a verbal type element that is Finite. These Mood adjuncts and
comment adjuncts validate propositions, obligation (must, have to) and inclination (possibly,
certainly) in expression of attitudes and opinions (to be honest, understandably, honestly). Mood
of clause comprise two types (a) indicative that includes declaratives (statements) and
interrogatives (yes/no and wh- questions) and (b) imperatives (commands, orders and
exclamations). The Mood expresses the interactional meaning. (Are the participants asking
questions, giving commands, or making statements?)
The last metafunction—the textual metafunction uses language to organise the ideational and
interpersonal meanings into a coherent text. Three textual metafunction elements include (a)
continuatives, that signal a response in dialogue or a move to the next point reference, (b)
conjunctions that link paratactically (expansion such as and, or, not, but, so) or binds
hypotactically (projection such as when, while, before, after, because, since, that) and (c)
conjunctive adjuncts. The last element shares the same semiotic space as conjunctions, referring
to adverbial groups or prepositional phrases that link the clause to the preceding text. The
thematic system is concerned with the textual metafunction. Through this system of analysis, it is
possible to assign the functions of theme and rheme (Fries, 1997). In functional terms, all clauses
are composed of a theme and a rheme.
Theme and Information Structure are the major structural systems within the textual
metafunction in Halliday‘s (1994) SFL approach. This is because they facilitate the development
of a meaningful message, thereby providing cohesion within language. Theme involves three
major systems: choice of marked or unmarked Theme, choice of predicated or unpredicated
Theme, and choice of Theme type. An unmarked Theme means ―the most typical/usual‖ (Eggins
2007: 318), while a marked Theme refers to ―atypical, unusual‖ choice whereby the Theme in a
declarative clause is something other than subject. A marked Theme is a variation of the
unmarked whereby focused information is foregrounded. The unmarked Theme conflates with
the mood structure constituent that is the subject (in a declarative clause), Finite (in an
interrogative), Predicator (in an imperative), or WH (in a WH-interrogative); the marked Theme
conflates with adverbial and prepositional group/phrase to provide circumstantial details about
an activity. Marked Themes add coherence and emphasis to texts through the use of Theme
Predication, which includes thematic and informational choices. The theme occupies the subject
position in a clause; the rheme is the predicate position. A Rheme may involve a number of
different pieces of information, each of which may be picked up and used as the Themes in
subsequent clauses. Theme/Rheme conflates with the information focus functions of Given/New.
The system of Information Structure consists of two functional elements, the Given information
or known or background knowledge. The New information is unknown. The New carries the
information focus. Given information precedes New information, and it refers to ―what is already
known or predictable‖ (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014:89). Given information is shared by the
reader/writer or speaker/hearer.
3. 3 Different methods of text analysis
The nature of the data one is dealing with determines the method of analysis. In this section we
are going to briefly examine DA, CA as methods of analysis, and then elaborate more on SFL.
Analysts can process meaning from different perspectives. Whether it comes from a more
linguistic tradition, in which texts are the objects of analysis, or from a more sociological
tradition, in which texts are cues to enter into culturally human experiences, apart from linguists,
scientists have utilized diverse methodologies to interpret these processes (Deppermann, 2013;
Ryan & Bernard, 2000). Words can be analyzed from a quantitative perspective, while others
analyze words from a qualitative perspective. An example of a content analysis and a
quantitative study is such as word count where researchers review the data to find word
frequency and the relationship between words. The downside of using this method is that the
context of the event is not taken into account (Guest, Macqueen & Namey, 2012). In most
qualitative analysis, the context of event is taken more into account. Discourse analysis (DA) is
an umbrella term for different approaches to text analysis that focus on systematic analysis of
recursive cultural and discursive elements with which people make sense of phenomena
(Nikander, 2012). Gee (2011) argues that each theory of discourse analysis develops a series of
tools to analyze language in use. The use of one DA theory instead of another depends upon the
nature of the data and of the study. Researchers who use DA try to capture elements of newness
in the discourse so they become elements of self-reflection and reflection about the social context
(Cazden, 2001). Conversation analysis (CA) allows the researcher to investigate specifically how
sequences of talk are related and how the identities of the speakers are enacted in those
sequences (Silverman, 2000). For CA researchers, there are some important premises: Gubrium
and Holstein (2000, p.492) state:
"1. Interaction is sequentially organized, and talk can be analyzed in terms of the process of
social interaction rather than in terms of motives or social status.
2. Talk, as a process of social interaction, is contextually oriented—it is both shaped by

interaction and creates the social context of that interaction.
3. These processes are involved in all social interaction, so no interactive details are irrelevant to
understanding it."
Thematic analysis has been used more as a tool for qualitative analysis rather than as an
independent methodology. Braun and Clarke (2006) argued that Thematic analysis should be
considered as a theoretical methodology because, although it is a flexible kind of analysis, it is
based on thorough theoretical principles. Researchers working with TA look for recurrent
patterns in the text or themes that are analyzed and reported in order to give a detailed
interpretation of the data (Boyatzis, 1998).
Apart from CA, DA, SFL is another useful analytical framework adopted by researches in
analysis of text. Text to SFL scholars is the way through which a culture unfolds in its social
context; SFL researchers see text in a functional and semantic way rather than looking at
sentences as formal and syntactic objects. The role of theme in the English language corresponds
to the initial position in the clause. The meaning of the theme of the clause is the point of
departure of the message and tells us what the message is concerned with. As Fries (1997 p. 232)
states, "[t]he theme of a clause provides a framework for the interpretation of the clause". Thus,
as a unit of analysis, the theme orients the listener/reader of the text to the meaning of the spoken
or written language. The Rheme (containing the verb) of the clause generally contains the
information unit, which is oriented towards the listener or reader of the text. The new element is
thus what is unpredictable in the clause. Through thematic progression, the researcher is able to
recognize patterns of meaning and to observe the organization of Themes and Rhemes within
clauses throughout a text. Identifying the thematic progression allows the researcher to gather
information about the pattern of flow of textual meaning in a text.
The mood system and appraisal analysis are concerned with the interpersonal metafunction. The
mood system allows researchers to analyze the clause as an interaction. Mood is grammatically
enacted in a subject that corresponds to a nominal group and a finite verb form (Halliday &
Matthiessen, 2014 [1985]). The mood system, then, is a tool to understand the grammatical
variations within interactions. In particular, it helps researchers to identify whether the clauses
are declarative, exclamatory, imperative, or interrogative. The mood system also assists the
researcher in detecting the polarity of the clause (whether the meaning of the clause is positive or
negative), as well as the modality of the clause.
Martin and Rose (2003) define appraisal as a system that focuses on attitude, how feelings,
values, and points of view are negotiated between the speaker or writer and the listener or reader.
White (2001), in his appraisal outline, explores how researchers started to use appraisal as an
instrument for data analysis in order "to explore in what contexts, by what linguistic means and
to what rhetorical ends writers pass value judgments, attribute their propositions to outside
sources or modalise their utterances" (p.3). Appraisal is a system used to analyze the use of
evaluative language, specifically the attitude, the engagement, and the graduation of the language
used by the speaker or writer.
Attitude is developed through three different types of meaning: affect, or evaluation by means of
emotion (i.e., I like coconut rice); judgment, or evaluation by means of ethics (i.e., rapists should
be prosecuted); and appreciation, or evaluation by means of appearance or aesthetic (i.e., a sleek
car). Engagement is developed through the use of words or clauses that dialogically include or
exclude the listener or reader from the text (i.e., the use of maybe versus the use of certainly).
Graduation is developed through force (words that can lower or raise the tone or intensity of a
text) and focus (the language used to convey the preciseness of the meaning of a text).
The transitivity and ergativity systems are concerned with the ideational metafunction. As
Halliday and Matthiesen (2014 [1985]) assert, the ideational metafunction regards the
representation of or the linguistic order that we impose on the flow of events we experience. The
grammatical system that corresponds to this metafunction is called transitivity. Through the
transitivity system, researchers explore how the phenomenon unfolds in time through a verbal
group that acts as the process of the clause. The types of processes and the participants to those
processes are the manifestation of the speaker‘s or writer‘s grammatical and semantic choices to
represent those processes. In particular, Halliday and Matthiesen talk about six overarching
processes: material processes, mental processes, relational processes, verbal processes,
behavioural processes and existential processes. The last type of analysis proposed by Halliday
and Matthiesen is called ergative analysis. Ergative analysis still regards the ideational
metafunction, but in a different way than transitivity. While transitivity enables one to examine
an experience as discrete units (how an experience unfolds as process,) ergative analysis allows
one to examine an experience as a whole. Taking causation as its first principle, ergative analysis
assists researchers in deciphering who is the agent in the text. It helps determine how the agent's
voice is effective, depending on whether the process is active, middle, or passive. Through
ergative analysis, the analyst can determine if the agent is present, hidden, or absent.
Within the framework of SFL, the unit of analysis is a clause rather than the sentence, the latter
referring to written text. Clauses are grammatical structures that contain a Finite verb (verbs that
carry tense such as has gone, is going, will go) in contrast to grammatical structures that contain
non-finite verbs that occur in infinitive such as to go or going (a gerund).
4.0 Conclusion
It may be concluded that SFL is a versatile and flexible methodology for analysis that facilitates
qualitative research by highlighting social meanings that are mediated through the linguistic
choices made in texts. Before using SFL for analysis, you have to know that the analysis of the
data requires a great investment of time depending on the level of depth the researcher wants to
reach. the researcher who wants to work with this framework needs to know very specific
terminology, this is owing to the fact that SFL terminology sometimes assigns new functional
meaning to familiar terminology utilized in traditional English grammar; in fact, SFL terms are
written with capital letters to distinguish them from traditional usage.
5.0 Summary
For the textual metafunction, one can use thematic analysis. For the interpersonal metafunction,
one can use mood analysis integrated with appraisal analysis. For the ideational metafunction,
one can use transitivity and ergativity analyses. The three language metafunctions provide
powerful linguistic research tools for a Systemic Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis of
texts.
Explain how the ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions are simultaneously realized
in texts.
7.0 References and further reading

Bezemer, J. & Jewitt, C. (2011). Multimodal Analysis: Key Issues, London: Routledge.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Martin, J. R. and D. Rose. (2003). Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause.
Bloomsbury Academic,
Gubrium, J. F. and J. A. Holstein (2000). Analyzing interpretive practice. In N. K. Denzin and
Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.)
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language
and Meaning. London: Arnold.
Jewitt, C. (2009). The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge Falmer.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2012). Multimodal Discourse Analysis. In J.P., Gee & M. Handford(eds.). The
Routledge Handbook of Discouse Analysis (chapter 3, pp.35-50). Oxon and New York:
Routledge.
Kress, G. &Van Leeuwen. (1996). Reading Images: the Grammar of Visual Design. London:
Routledge.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing Social Semiotics. London: Routledge.
Li, Lijuan. (2009). A Social Semiotic Approach to the Representative Meanings of the Immortal
Statue of Mazu. Journal of Putian University, 6, 79-82.[10]Li,
Li, Enghui. (2012). A Social-Semiotic Analysis of the Multimodal Discourse of the Logo of
2011 Universiade. Journal of Hubei University of Economics (Humanities and Social
Sciences,7,129-130.
Li, Huabing. (2013). Research Method and Field of Multimodality.Journal of Xi‘an International
Studies University, 3, 21-25.
O‘Halloran, K.L. (2011). Multimodal Analysis and Digital Technology. In A. Baldry and E.
Montagna(Eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Multimodality: Theory and Practice.
Campobassso: Palladino.
O‘Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., Smith, B. A. & Podlasov, A. (2011). Multimodal Analysis within an
Interactive Software Environment: Critical Discourse Perspectives. Critical Discourse
Studies, 2,109-125.
Zhanzi. (2003). Social Semiotic Approach to Multimodal Discourse, Foreign Languages
Research, 5, 1-8.
MODULE 5: DOING DISCOURSE ANALYSIS USING DIFFERENT APPROACHES
Unit 1: Methods of doing DA – Data gathering

CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OBJECTIVES
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 What is Data?
3.3 Data in Discourse Analysis
3.5 Method of Data Gathering in Discourse Analysis Research

4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
As a scholar in the English language department, discourse analysis is an area you may want to
explore for thesis writing. It is important however that you start a research venture by getting a
well-focused idea about the area you will want to work on. In other words, you need to get a
good idea that is worth spending time and effort on. In doing research in discourse analysis, it
should be noted that there is no set procedure for doing discourse analysis. In other words,
scholars approach research in this filed from different ways and according to the specific nature
of the project and their perception of discourse. In most cases, research in discourse analysis is
interdisciplinary, in which case, it involves an interest in properties of texts as well as the
production, distribution and interpreting of texts. Thus, projects in DA will usually be framed
around questions about particular social practice and their relations to particular social structure.
It means research projects are defined in relation to related disciplines such as sociology, politics,
history, media, etc. In this unit therefore, we will start by explaining what data means. We will
also discuss different data gathering methods and then describe what data collection in discourse
analysis entails.
2.0 Objectives

 define data
 discuss data collection
 explain data in discourse analysis
3.0 Main Contents
3.1 What is Data?
Data in research refer to any information collected, stored, and processed to produce and validate
original research results. Osang, at al. (2013:59) describe data as ―a collection of facts, such as
values or measurements, observation or even just the descriptions of things‖. Data could be used
to validate or disprove a theory, bolster claims made in research, or to further the knowledge
around a specific topic or problem. Unlike the erroneous notion that data is only needed in
scientific research, research data are collected and used in scholarship across all academic
disciplines. Data could come in different forms which include spread sheets, field notes,
questionnaires, transcripts, photographs, images, interview notes among others. Data could be
classified into primary and secondary data. Primary data are those which the researcher has
collected by themselves. This type of data is collected at the source or originally collected by
individuals, focus groups and a panel of respondents specifically set up by the researcher whose
opinions are sought on specific issues now and then. Secondary data on the other hand comprise
existing data which could include computerised database, company records or archives,
government or media publications, and so on. The advantages of primary data range from
accuracy of information, less expensive, current, etc. while secondary data easier to collect, cost
effective, etc. the disadvantages of both is that primary data is time consuming while secondary
data stands the danger of not been current. Data could also be classified as quantitative or
qualitative. Quantitative data is mainly in form of numbers. Thus, it refers to information that is
collected as, or can be translated into numbers which can be displayed and analysed
mathematically. Quantitative data could be structured or unstructured. Structured data refers to
organised data while unstructured data is somewhat disorganised. Structured data could be
produced by closed questions while unstructured data could be produced by open questions.
Define the concept of data in project writing
3.3 Data in Discourse Analysis
As you must have noticed in our discussion on data, the research problem and field of study
influence the type of data that a researcher needs to gather and the mode of data collection. For
instance, when researchers engage in grammatical analysis of language or other formal studies of
language, the data usually comprise the single sentence or a set of single sentences. In addition, it
is usually the practice that the grammarian would have constructed or invented the examples of
the sentence(s) cited in the study. However, the focus of the discourse analysts, according to
Brown and Yule (1988), is in the study of natural occurring language. In other words, data and
samples are not invented by the linguist but are output of someone else. Thus, data is in form of
written or tape-recordings. This type of data is sometimes described as ‗performance data‘ and
may contain slips, hesitations and other non-standard forms which formal linguists such as Noam
Comsky (1958) believe should not be accounted for in linguistic analysis. Nonetheless, discourse
analysis could also involve the use of invented examples in which case, they are used as
illustration of a paradigm or to account for the range of formal options available to a speaker or
writer. In Unit 2 and 3, we will look at practical ways in which discourse analysis could be
applied to the study of conversations and classroom discourse.
Describe what you understand by data in discourse analysis.
3.5 Data Gathering
As research students, you must be familiar with the idea of collecting data for project writing.
You will agree therefore that data is important to research and they have to be collected in a
systematic manner to ensure a successful outcome for the study. It is true that when data are
properly gathered, the research will likely end up with authentic findings and contribute to
knowledge. However, if the data are poorly gathered, the outcome will likely be weak and easily
contested research outcomes. There are different types of approaches to data collection. They
include, interview methods (face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews), questionnaire
method, observational study method, experimental method, surveys method and census method.
When one sets out to gather data for discourse analysis, attention has to be paid to the data that is
relevant to the research project and how to have access to it. One may need to first investigate
through reading and discussion from people in the relevant disciplines for information on
samples that are typical or representative of a particular practise. Data collection could be
enhanced through interviews. This could provide the opportunity for the researcher to probe into
issues which the go beyond the samples. In addition, the researcher needs to be open to different
ways of enhancing data as the study progresses.
4.0 Conclusion
Data in research are usually employed to provide answers to different questions. Thus, they have
to be relevant to the field where they are applied and also be selected systematically. Data in
discourse analysis are usually drawn from naturally occurring language. sometimes there is also
a need to enhance data by drawing on data outside the samples drawn from the domain of the
practise where the research question is generated.
5.0 Summary
In this unit, we have considered definitions of data. In addition, we examined the notion of data
in discourse analysis research. Finally, we looked at ways in which data is collected for discourse
analysis research. In the next Unit 2, we shall attempt to briefly examine how discourse analysis
research methods could be applied to conversation analysis and classroom discourse analysis.

Identify an area of practise and explain how to collect data for research in this area.

Gee, J.P. (2011). How to do Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit. London: Routledge.
MODULE 5: DOING DISCOURSE ANALYSIS USING DIFFERENT APPROACHES

Unit 2: Applying Discourse Analysis Methods to Conversations
1.0 Introduction
Note, that in Unit 3 of Module 2, we discussed Conversation Analysis (CA). You will recall that
CA was described as the study of talk in interaction. We found that the origin of CA could be
linked to researchers‘ interest in the study of the structure of conversations. In this Unit, we want
to briefly consider how to effectively conduct a research in CA. This will include a mention of
the possible areas of research concerns that a student could decide to explore, the kind of data
that would be appropriate for CA and how to go about collecting and analysing these data.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 Identify areas of research in Conversation Analysis

 discuss how to conduct research in conversation analysis
 explain data gathering and data Analysis in Conversation Analysis
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 How to Conduct Research in Conversation Analysis
Research in Conversation Analysis (CA) is useful for empirical investigation of interaction in

communicative events. CA research therefore usually orientates towards talk-in-interaction and
thus provides detailed qualitative evidence of how participants organise their interactions in
specific communicative situations. To conduct research in CA, one would often need to rely on
recorded event, utterance or gesture as analytic evidence of the ways participants use event to
organise their subsequent actions. If you choose to carry of a study in conversation analysis, you
could focus on the study of ordinary conversation such as chatting among friends or institutional
talk. Different areas of CA research which you could consider include: the organisation of
speech sequences, turn-taking and repair practices, syntax-for-conversation, the structure of
speech events, and the integration of speech and gesture. The analytical focus could also be
directed to the ways native English speakers and non-native speakers deploy aspects of
interactional competence in communicative situations. In addition, CA could be applied to the
following areas of research: mundane conversations, speech disorders and speech therapy,
classroom and pedagogic interactions, Television and radio news interviews, different forms of
counselling (for instance, AIDS counselling), interactions in medical setting, etc.
Discuss at least two areas where you could apply conversation analysis research.
3.3 Data Gathering and Data Analysis in Conversation Analysis
As mentioned in Unit 1, Conversation analysis could be applied to the study of naturally

occurring data from either ordinary conversation or institutional talk. The primary data is usually
drawn from conversations and other behaviours that participants produce in real time
communicative situations. Data collection strategies applied to CA research includes the
collection of videotapes, audiotapes, or both which are then transcribed. Transcription is central
to CA. In this case, verbal interaction is typed out turn-by-turn, then symbols are added and
arranged spatially to indicate temporal and production features of talk. External materials such
as interviews may be introduced into the database when found relevant and appropriate. The
recordings are considered as the definitive source of information while the transcripts are
understood as a tool for analysis to be used in conjunction with recordings. In CA, data analysis
usually takes the form of demonstration of how participants collaboratively co-construct talk.
This entails analysing prototypical examples of talk-in-interaction, which may consist of either
single cases or collections of particular types of conversational objects. Data analysis could be
qualitative or a combination of qualitative and quantitative.
4.0 Conclusion
Scholarly endeavour in conversation analysis has shown that it is a promising field where studies
in talk-in-interaction could be analysed. While CA researches are traditionally applied to the
study of ordinary conversations, they have also extended to the investigation of speech disorders,
classroom interactions, media discourse among others.
5.0 Summary
In this Unit, attention has been paid to the ways research is conducted in CA. In addition, we
have also considered how to gather data and analyse data in the field of CA. In the next Unit, we
shall also consider research strategies that could be applied to studies in classroom discourse
analysis.

Identify a topic in conversation analysis and discuss how data could be collected for the project.

Sidney, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of Conversation Analysis. UK: Blackwell.
Unit 3: Applying Discourse Analysis Methods to Classroom Discourse

CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 OBJECTIVES
3.0 MAIN CONTENT
3.1 How to Conduct Research in Classroom Discourse Analysis
3.3 Data Gathering and Data Analysis in Classroom Discourse Analysis
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
In Unit 2, we discussed how to carry out research in the field of conversation analysis. In this
unit, we will briefly look at how research is carried out in classroom discourse analysis. In this
regard, we will consider the data gathering methods as well as data analysis in the field of
classroom discourse analysis.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
 Identify areas of research in Classroom Discourse Analysis

 discuss how to conduct research in Classroom Discourse analysis
 explain data gathering and data Analysis in Classroom Discourse Analysis
3.0 Main Contents
3.1 How to Conduct Research in Classroom Discourse Analysis
You will agree with me that the aim of any research is problem solving. In other words, it is
expected that the researcher has identified a challenge or problem in an area which s/he intends
to solve through scientific investigation. As a way of initiating the study therefore, you will need
to first identify and define the focus of your research. That is, you will need to develop some
questions about your area of focus. Then you need to set out a plan that will cover preliminary
investigation, the timeline for the research, as well as cost. As discussed in Unit 4 of Module 2,
Classroom discourse analysis is a field where investigation of the organisation of talk in
classroom context could be carried out. Areas of research where classroom discourse analysis
could be applied include interactional patterns in the classroom, code switching in classroom
discourse, critical study of classroom discourse, social and cognitive functions of classroom talk,
multimodal analysis of classroom discourse, classroom discourse analysis of intellectually
disabled learners, classroom interactions in EFL contexts, classroom interactions relating to
mother tongue and second language learning, etc.
Identify some areas in which research in classroom discourse analysis could be carried out.
3.3 Data Gathering and Data Analysis in Classroom Discourse Analysis

Qualitative or quantitative methods could be adopted in classroom discourse analysis.
Quantitative or observational approach could sometimes be employed to measure how teacher
variables affect particular student outcomes. Qualitative research could be adopted to understand
for example how varied linguistic differences of diverse students influenced students‘ learning.
Data collection for classroom discourse analysis may consist of surveys, interviews, student
portfolios, observations, student scores, etc. Qualitative analysis is common in classroom
discourse analysis.
4.0 Conclusion
Similar to other research engagements, classroom discourse analysis study require that the
scholar identity problems which could be investigated in order to provide recommendations that
would enhance learning in this area. Different methods, including survey, interviews, participant
observation among others could be applied to classroom discourse study.
5.0 Summary
In this unit, we have looked at ways in which data could be collected for classroom discourse
analysis research. In addition, we briefly examined different areas where classroom discourse
research could be carried out.

State some research topics in classroom discourse analysis that could help solve traditional
classroom teacher-learner interaction challenges.
Christie, F. (2002). Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Functional Perspective. New York:

Continuum.
MODULE 5: PRACTICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS USING DA APPROACHES
UNIT 4: APPLYING DISCOURSE ANALYSIS METHODS (CRITICAL DISCOURSE

ANALYSIS)
Contents
29.0 Introduction
31.0 Main Content
3.1 Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool
3.2 how to make an analysis of a text critical
3.3 How to work through a text
3.4 Text analysis and CDA
3.5 Criticism of CDA

32.0 Conclusion
33.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
In previous units you have learnt what Critical discourse analysis is. As a way of reiterating
what CDA is, it is a branch of linguistics that seeks to understand how and why certain texts
affect readers and hearers. Through the analysis of a text whether spoken or written, it aims to
uncover the ‗hidden ideologies‘ that can influence a reader/hearer's view of the world. This unit
deals with how analysts can unravel hidden ideologies in texts.
2.0 Unit Objectives
Unravel how ideologies are hidden in texts
How discourses can serve as a tool of domination
Different areas of focus for a discourse analyst
3.0 Main content

3.1 Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool
In this unit we shall majorly use Fairclough's (1989, 1995) model for CDA for our explanations.
Why Fairclough‘s approach to CDA is so useful is because it provides multiple points of analytic
entry. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) stems from a critical theory of language which sees the
use of language as a form of social practice. All social practice are tied to specific historical
contexts and are the means by which existing social relations are reproduced or contested and
different interests are served.
Fairclough‘s early work on CDA (e.g. 1989) offers an amalgamation of linguistic and social
theories. In recognising that language is part of society, that linguistic phenomena are a particular
type of social phenomenon, and that social phenomena are partly linguistic, Fairclough (1989,
1992a, 2001b) conceptualised discourse as a three dimensional concept.
Explain how Critical Discourse Analysis is a critical tool for the analysis of discourses
3.2 how to make an analysis of a text critical

Before undertaking the analysis of any text, you have to bear in mind the theoretical orientations
of the particular theory you intend using. For instance, if you want to use CDA, you look at the
concern of CDA. It is concerned with ―the effect of power relations and inequalities in producing
social wrongs,‖ with the ultimate goal of moving beyond the interpretation of texts and
advocating for social change (Fairclough, 2010, p. 8). This concern of CDA will guide you in
your analysis; another concern of CDA according to (Brabham, 2012, p. 398) is that power is
revealed through the implicit meanings of texts ―at the word, sentence, and passage level‖.
If a text is pertaining to interests, as an analyst you ask questions like: How are pieces of
information positioned in the text? Next, you look at whose interests are served by this
positioning? Some interest would be foregrounded and some downplayed. You note the interest
that is foregrounded and the one downplayed. You look for single words or phrases that have
domination or ideas tucked in them. For instance when an author is writing about two political
parties in the society say party A and Party B, as he chooses to use kind and positive adjectives
to report activities of party A and use negative adjectives to report activities of party B, the
choice of adjectives on the surface will look as if they have been chosen arbitrarily, but the
underlying motive is for the reader to see party A as better than Party B. You may need to probe
what are the consequences of this positioning that relate discourse to relations of power, that is
who is given the higher vice in the discourse. In the illustration given above, party A is implicitly
given more power and more voice. Where analysis seeks to understand how discourse is
implicated in relations of power, it is called critical discourse analysis.
Fairclough's (1989, 1995) model of CDA used in the illustration above consists three inter-
related processes of analysis tied to three inter-related dimensions of discourse. These three
dimensions are:
1 The object of analysis (including verbal, visual or verbal and visual texts).
2 The processes by which the message is produced and received (speaking alone, writing alone
or a combination of speaking and writing, speaking, writing and visuals? Is the message received
through reading, listening or viewing?
3 The socio-historical conditions which govern these processes.
According to Fairclough each of these dimensions requires a different kind of analysis:
1 text analysis (description),
2 processing analysis (interpretation),
3 social analysis (explanation).
What is useful about this approach is that it enables you to focus on the words or objects of
meaning that make up the text, the specific linguistic selections, their juxtapositioning, their
sequencing, their layout and so on. However, it also requires you to recognise that the historical
determination of these selections and to understand that these choices are tied to the conditions
of possibility of that utterance. This is another way of saying that texts are instanciations of
socially regulated discourses and that the processes of production and reception are socially
constrained. Why Fairclough‘s approach to CDA is so useful is because it provides multiple
points of analytic entry. It does not matter which kind of analysis one begins with, as long as in
the end they are all included and are shown to be mutually explanatory. It is in the
interconnections of the processes mentioned above that the analyst finds the interesting patterns
and disjunctions that need to be described, interpreted and explained.
How can the process through which a text is produced and received affect the meaning of the
text?
3.3 How to work through a text
Fairclough (1995: 98) tries to capture the simultaneity of his method of CDA with a model that
embeds the three different kinds of analysis one inside the other. Fairclough model involves the
embedding of boxes which emphasises the interdependence of these dimensions and the intricate
moving backwards and forwards between the different types of analysis which this
interdependence necessitates. The critical analyst will read through a text forward and
backwards. Looking at a text critically is not very difficult when we disagree with it - when the
positions that it offers to us as readers are far removed from what we think and believe and
value. In cases where we begin from a position of estrangement or alienation from the text it is
easier to read against rather than with the text. In such a case the interests served by the text may
be apparent; the reader may even be at the receiving end of the consequences entailed and might
have little difficulty in questioning the text. Where the naturalisations in a text are not natural
for us as readers or listeners, it points out that texts constructions are only versions of reality.
Often readers are not in a position to question these textual positioning, this is because a range of
factors both textual and non-textual, structure the reader's engaged-estranged position in relation
to any particular text. In relation to a text, engagement without estrangement is a form of
submission to the power of the text regardless of the reader‘s own position(s). Estrangement
without engagement is a refusal to leave the confines of one‘s own subjectivity, a refusal to leave
one‘s own views and ideas, and a refusal to allow otherness to enter. There are many factors
which favour of engagement of the reader. These include the reader co-operatively reading to
make sense of the surface meaning of the text (Grice 1975); the writer or text producer writing so
as to constrain possible interpretations, covertly structuring the subjectivity of the ideal reader
(Scholes, 1985). In societies, co-operation, textual power and institutional practices favour
engagement. In reading with the text, readers start by identifying with what Hall (1980) calls the
‗preferred readings‘ constructed by the text and they have to move deliberately to resist the text‘s
apparent naturalness. The theory and practice of CDA suggests strategies which enable this
deliberate move and argues the need for reading against the text to counterbalance reading with
the text. Where naturally, the text producer wants the reader to flow with the text; all of these are
important issues when doing a CDA of a text.
To begin doing a CDA of any text, it is advisable that you try and see how far you can get with a
single text and then try and locate gaps you need to fill, that is, try and locate some unanswered
questions and hypotheses by the writer. Look for patterns that you can use to establish
hypotheses about discourses at work in society. Try to confirm or disconfirm these hypotheses
by looking for other related texts. This can assist you to discover questions that need answering
with regard to the social relations and discourses instantiated in the text and others connected to
it.
Get a political advertisement on a newspaper, using the illustration above, do a CDA of it.
3.4 Text analysis and CDA
In beginning the analysis of a text, it is important to remember that it is never possible to read
meaning directly off the verbal and visual textual signs. The different discourses available for
readers to draw on provide different conditions for the reception of a text in different contexts.
Textual features, visual clues used in conjunction with contextual knowledge, can be tools which
can be used as entry points for analysis. Note that textual analysis is different from CDA. Textual
analysis focuses on the surface analysis of linguistic items in a text; CDA delves deeper
unveiling underlying ideologies embedded in the linguistic elements of the text and relating them
to the wider discursive practices that underlie the text. Analysis visual signs in a text will look at
the suggestiveness, implication and inferences that could be deduced from each visual sign.
Their placements, links and what they do for the audience is equally important. According to
(Kress and van Leeuwen, 1990: 51), if the visuals look like what is obtainable in real life, we say
in semiotic terms that they are of higher modality, but if unreal, we say they are of low modality
choices. Also, if a human image in a text is not looking at the viewer, the text or picture therefore
‗does not demand that the viewer enter into an imaginary social relation‘ with the human image
(Kress and van Leeuwen, 1990:28). Instead the human image is presented as an object for the
viewer‘s contemplation (28). Most texts are hybrids, which draw on more than one discourse.
The specific hybridity of multimodal text provides evidence for values in transition. It shows the
tenacity of existing discourses at work in society and the struggle of alternative discourses to
emerge.
For textual analysis, one can systematically examine:

1 Lexicalisation
2 Patterns of transitivity
3 The use of active and passive voice
4 The use of nominalisation
5 The choices of mood
6 The choices of modality or polarity
7 The thematic structure of the text
8 The information focus
9 The cohesion devices
These are Halliday‘s grammatical resources for teasing out ideational, interpersonal and textual
meanings in texts. What one is looking for is patterns that emerge across these linguistic
functions that confirm or contradict one another. So for instance, the pattern of certainty or
uncertainty, essentially an analysis of modality and polarity, establishes a hierarchy of power
which is confirmed by the naming practices and the transitivity analysis. An examination of
cohesion which, amongst other things, requires one to look at how pronouns are used to refer,
reveals that the reference system is not stable. Halliday (1985) explains that transitivity is a
fundamental property of language which enables human beings to build a mental picture of
reality, to make sense of their experience of what goes on around them and inside them. ... Our
most powerful conception of reality is that it consists of verbal elements which focus on `goings
on‘: of doing, happening, being; and adjectival elements which focus on ‗feeling‘. These goings
on are sorted out in the semantic system of the language, and expressed through the grammar of
the clause (101). Amongst other things the clause evolved to express the reflective, experiential
aspects of meaning known as transitivity. Transitivity specifies the different types of processes
that are recognised in the language and the structures by which they are expressed (Halliday
1985:101). His grammar proposes six different processes or kinds of transitivity. To do a
transitivity analysis it is necessary to identify every verb and its associated process. It is then
necessary to identify patterns in the use of these processes.
CDA which requires that we consider the social conditions which affect textual production can
suggest a fruitful line of enquiry. Transitivity is not as easily visible to producers and readers as
other linguistic features because of the complexity of its encoding. Lexical selection in the verb
has to be related to syntactic extensions, to participants and to processes. In addition one has to
trace the patterns of use across participants. Deconstructive analysis of transitivity is a layered
and complex process. It is not something that one can ‗see‘ or ‗feel‘ by just looking carefully at a
text. I would argue that because transitivity is less obvious, deeper in the syntax, it suggests less
conscious control by the writer and it requires more conscious effort for the reader to analyse it.
Examples of more obvious linguistic selections that are easier to recognise and monitor
include the way in which the participants are named, which was discussed earlier and the use
of the passive construction. Fairclough refers to the situational context and the intertextual
context as central to the process of interpretation. In terms of the situational context it is useful to
ask questions about time and place.
A researcher should also bear in mind Hybridity of a text. This means the availability of so many
discourses in the society. This is a fruitful area for CDA to investigate because it is here that the
different interests are played out. Of the many different discourses available in the society to be
drawn from, different texts privilege different ones. The privileging of discourses works to serve
particular interests. The researcher will need to describe and interpret the new texts that the
research questions lead to. The strength of CDA is that the different dimensions of analysis that
it offers, provide the means both for producing research questions and for analysing data. As
such, it is an extremely important research tool.
CDA can be applied to many genres because of its eclectic nature. Also, many of the tools used
in CDA are drawn from Stylistics, which for example looks at the way literary texts create
meaning and poetic effects. CDA uses a similar type of analysis to look at (mainly) non-literary
texts. There is no set group of tools that must be used, and researchers are discovering new ways
of analysing language all the time. However, traditional tools used include modality, transitivity
and nominalisation, while more recent additions include naming, opposition and negation. Many
CDA analyses are divided into sections corresponding to the tools that are used. When an analyst
wants to look on naming in texts for instance, the focus will be on the contents of noun phrases –
the units of language that name things in the world. The ideological interest here comes from the
fact that when we apply a noun phrase to something, we label it and use language to presuppose
its existence.
3.5 Criticism of CDA
One of the benefits of CDA is its ability to bring together social and linguistic analyses of
discourse, thus integrating analysis at the macro level of social structure with analysis at the
micro level of social action. Although some criticism of CDA has focused on its attention to
linguistic analysis and a perceived over-emphasis on the ‗micro‘, the test of CDA‘s effectiveness
has to be in its ability to analyse ‗the social‘ in conjunction with linguistic microanalysis (Luke,
2002, Pennycook, 2000). As Luke (2002, pp.102, 100) argued, CDA requires the overlay of
‗social theoretic discourses for explaining and explicating the social contexts, concomitants,
contingencies and consequences of any given text or discourse‘, accompanied by ‗a principled
and transparent shunting back and forth‘ between the micro and macro.
4.0 Summary
This unit reinforces the meaning and explanations of CDA as have been explained in previous
unit. We said here that by analysing modality, transitivity, nominalisation, naming, opposition
and negation in texts, hidden ideologies can be revealed. Textual analysis focuses on the surface
structure and denotative meaning of linguistic items in a text, but CDA delves deeper unearthing
ideas and meanings that are not visible at first sight to a reader.
5. 0 Conclusion
CDA tools can be used to take an in-depth look at language. By analysing modality, transitivity,
nominalisation, naming, opposition and negation, an analyst can make suggestions as to the
ideologies underlying the texts. The ways through which an author positions things in a text can
tell which ideology(ies) the author wants to foreground. On the surface, a passage is an ordinary
one that looks at the surface meaning of the text. The same passage viewed by an analyst
working within a framework of critical discourse analysis would view the text very differently.
The biases and beliefs of the author influence how that story is told. The analyst‘s job is to
uncover these biases. One of the important things to be observed in any text to be analysed is
local coherence of the text, how are ideas and comments of the text bound together? How are the
facts related? And so on.

Explain how discourse analysis is different from critical discourse analysis.
7.0 References and further reading
Fairclough, N. (1989) Language And Power. (London, Longman).
Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. (London, Longman).
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. 2nd ed.
Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Pearson Education.
Freebody, P., Luke, A. And Gilbert, P. (1991) Reading Positions and Practices in
the classroom. Curriculum Inquiry 21:4. John Wiley, Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.
Grice, H.P. (1975) `Logic and conversation'. In: Cole, P. and Morgan J.L. eds. Syntax and
Semantics III: Speech Acts. (New York, Academic Press).
Hall, S. (1980) Encoding/decoding, in: Culture, Media, Language. (London, Hutchinson).

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. (London, Edward
Arnold).
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (1990) Reading Images. (Victoria, Deakin University
Press).
Luke, A. (1988) Literacy, Textbooks and Ideology. (London, Falmer Press).
Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal
introduction. London: Sage Publications.
Scholes, R. (1985) Textual Power. (New Haven, Yale University Press).

Smith, F. (1971) Understanding Reading. A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading and
Learning to Read. (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston).
Volosinov, V.N. (1973) Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Tr. Matejka, L. and
Titunik, I.R. (New York, Seminar Press).
UNIT 5: APPLYING DISCOURSE ANALYSIS METHODS (MULTIMODAL CRITICAL
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS)
36.0 Introduction
38.0 Main Content
3.1 Multimodal communication
3.1.2 Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis
3.2 Point of focus in Multimodal Critical Discourse analysis
3.2.1 Analysing advertisement messages

39.0 Conclusion
40.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
In the previous unit, we learnt how to analyse texts using Critical discourse analysis. In this unit,
we are going to further our knowledge to text analysis through using multimodal critical
discourse analysis.
2.0 unit objectives
Differentiate between a monomodal text and a multimodal one;
Know semiotic elements in a multimodal text jointly produce meaning
Analyse a multimodal text
3.0 Main content
3.1 Multimodal communication

After the two key publications in the 1990s (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996; O ‘Toole, 1994)
multimodality has been a growing field and has developed into a handful of overlapping and
distinctive sub-fields (Jewitt, Bezemer, & O‘Halloran, 2016). One of its key principles is the
drive to produce more detailed and predictive forms of analysis of all types of communication.
The result of this is that more scholars from different disciplines inculcate it in their analysis
which includes things like billboard advertisements, textbooks, spaces, videos and monuments.
Multimodal communication, in simple terms is communication done through using more than
one semiotic resource. Semiotic resources include: language, pictures, graphology and so on.
Work in multimodality draws core principles from the systemic functional linguistics (SFL) of
Halliday (1978) and (1985), specifically as described by Halliday and Matthiesen (2014), which
themselves form the basis of the approaches taken by Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996) and by
O‘Toole (1994). Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA) as outlined by Machin and
Mayr (2012), which considers how elements of visual communication contribute to power
relations alongside verbal or written texts
How is a monomodal text different from a multimodal one?
3.1.2 Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis
Halliday‘s work has also contributed many of its analytical tools to linguistic analysis carried out
in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). The term ‗critical‘ in critical discourse analysis
principally means unearthing, unravelling or ‗denaturalizing‘ ideologies expressed in discourse
and revealing how power structures are constructed, embedded in discourse. (Wodak 2001: 2)
points out that CDA research specifically analyses institutional, political, gender and media
discourses which ‗‗testify to more or less overt relations of struggle and conflict‘‘ because of its
solid analytical foundation, Halliday‘s work helps CDA practitioners to ground concerns about
power and ideology in the detailed analysis of language. Both fields also share the view of
language as socially constructed, this means that language both shapes and is shaped by society.
Although the general thrust in CDA has been towards the analysis of linguistic structures, more
recently there has been a visual turn inspired by scholars who have incorporated visual images
into concepts of discourse and have moved towards broader multimodal conceptions (Kress and
van Leeuwen 1996; Machin 2007). This extension of CDA into visual semiotics also has its
origins in early Hallidayan theory which maintains that language is only one semiotic resource
out of many and that several forms of representations, linguistic and non-linguistic, are used in
the construction of discourse. For example, while political and ideological views of newspapers
can be expressed in the choice of different vocabularies (e.g. ‗resistance fighters‘ vs.
‗insurgents‘) and different grammatical structures (e.g. active vs. passive constructions), visual
structures in the form of images just as much can convey ideological meanings. Applying some
of the linguistic principles found in SFL, Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA)
therefore shows how images, photographs, diagrams and graphics also work to create meanings
communicated by a text, which are often more implicit or indirect than language.
The work of Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) in particular has developed a set of tools derived
from SFL that allows us to study the choices of visual features as well as lexical and grammatical
choices in language. One of these tools is social actor analysis (van Leeuwen, 1996), a linguistic
and visual inventory of the ways we can describe and classify people and some of the ideological
effects that these classifications can have. According to van Leeuwen, people can be
personalized or impersonalized, represented as specific individuals or as generic types. Certain
naming strategies therefore foreground aspects of a person‘s identity while backgrounding
others.
Do a multimodal analysis of this text
Source: Whatsapp message March 2020
3.2 Point of focus in Multimodal Critical Discourse analysis
Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA) as outlined by Machin and Mayr (2012),
considers how elements of visual communication contribute to power relations alongside verbal
or written texts. Doing critical discourse studies with multimodality: from metafunctions to
materiality. In contemporary times we now see more research which draws upon multimodality
as part of carrying out analyses of how texts make meaning, in order to draw out the ideologies
which they carry. However, much of multimodality is itself based closely on one theory of
language called Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). The concepts and models drawn from
this theory is suitable both for analyzing different forms of communication.
At its core lies the drive to produce more detailed and predictive forms of analysis of all types of
communication. Over the past decade it has become much more usual to find scholarly articles in
fields such as critical discourse studies, sociolinguistics and pragmatics, using multimodality are
part of their analysis which includes things like images, textbooks, videos, monuments, spaces,
etc. Such critical work draws from the broader field of multimodality in different ways. But what
underpins much of it are a number of core principles from the systemic functional linguistics
(SFL) of Halliday (1978) and (1985), specifically as described by Halliday and Matthiesen
(2014), which themselves form the basis of the approaches taken by Kress and Van Leeuwen
(1996) and by O‘Toole (1994). According to Halliday, language is organized to fulfill three basic
metafunctions:
1. the need to communicate ideas and experiences, this is the ideational metafunction;
2. to form social relationships and identities, this is the interpersonal metafunction; and
3. to create coherence, this is the textual metafunction. In any text, you are likely to see these
three metafunctions jointly producing the intended meaning of the text creator. Also, an
assumption is made in that all forms of communication are structured on the basis of these types
of meanings. We then identify the system of choices which are used to fulfill the metafunctions,
whether in a visual text like a photograph, or a verbal text. For example, for a photograph this
might mean how the interpersonal function is fulfilled through things like ‗proximity‘, ‗angle of
interaction‘ and ‗gaze‘. This methodological approach is spelt out by Jewitt et al. (2016, p. 49):
(1) Developing metafunctionally organized systems (2) Analysing the text according to the
choices that are selected (3) Interpreting combinations of choices according to register and genre.
Djonov and Zhao (2018) state, in a similar fashion, that two tenets from SFL underlie (much)
multimodal research. First that ‗‗every act of communication simultaneously constructs three
broad types of meaning, or ―metafunctions‖‘and second that ‗the meaning potential of semiotic
modes can be modelled as systems of interrelated choices, paradigmatically, where each has a
distinctive structural realization‘ (ibid., p. 4). The unit of analysis is the clause in the SFL
approach to language. In multimodality, the equivalent of clauses must be found for different
forms of communication. Texts or semiotic artefacts are then ‗annotated‘ according to (semantic)
system choices attached to the metafunctions. In what follows we examine these stages and the
theoretical assumptions in SFL which lead to these assumptions. We consider how directly these
are of use for accounting for other forms of communication and for answering research
questions.
3.2.1 Focus in a multimodal analysis
With information technology rapidly growing, visual language becomes more and more
important in all aspects. The multimodal feature of advertising is an evidence of its use
of various semiotic resources, such as language, image, sound, and color, to better convey the
connotation and obtain the best advertising effect. Multimodal discourses exist widely and are
taking Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) as its theoretical basis and providing new
research ideas and perspectives for discourse analysis. As a new research method of discourse
analysis, MDA has become a research focus, especially in the fields of linguistics and social
semiotics. SFL postulates language as a meaning making semiotic potential that embodies three
kinds of language metafunctions:
We see that the ideational/experiental meanings are realized by things like transitivity (verb
processes) and by how things are named. ideational oriented towards the field of discourse and
construed by the experiential and the logical meanings, The interpersonal meanings are realized
by moods and modality (or example for indicating certainty such as ‗I will‘ or ‗I may‘). the
interpersonal meaning oriented towards the tenor of discourse, and the textual oriented towards
the mode of discourse. The textual function is realized by the grammar which allows it to fit
together in an information structure. The textual metafunction weaves the ideational and the
interpersonal meanings into a textual whole. Martinec (1998: 162) states that feature selections
and structures of the textual meaning ―enable the ideational and interpersonal ones to form the
cohesive wholes called phases‖. Thus, any stretch of written text can be said to be cohesive when
it realises the ideational, interpersonal, and textual meanings. So the metafunctions and systems
which realize them link to contextual features such as ‗field‘ (what is going on) which tends to
be realized by the ideational/experiental metafunction,‗tenor‘(the relations between participants)
by the interpersonal metafunction and ‗mode‘ (the channel of communication–spoken, written,
etc.) by the textual.
One reason for the emphasis on networks in SFL is that it is a meta-semantic theory. SFL has a
strict content-to-expression directionality where the system networks formalize meanings. The
three language metafunctions provide powerful linguistic research tools for a Systemic
Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis of texts (Alyousef 2013; O‘Halloran 2008b, 2009,
2011): TRANSITIVITY (participants, processes, and circumstances) and conjunctions, MOOD
(speech function) and modality (obligation and degree of certainty or uncertainty), and Theme
and Information structure and the non-structural system of Cohesion (reference, substitution and
ellipsis). Theme and Information Structure are the major structural systems within the textual
metafunction in Halliday‘s (1994) SFL approach since they facilitate the development of a
meaningful message, thereby providing cohesion within language. Theme involves three major
systems: choice of marked or unmarked Theme, choice of predicated or unpredicated Theme,
and choice of Theme type.
Eggins (2007: 318) says that an unmarked Theme means ―the most typical/usual‖, while a
marked Theme refers to ―atypical, unusual‖ choice whereby the Theme in a declarative clause is
something other than subject. A marked Theme is a variation of the unmarked whereby focused
information is brought to the fore. The unmarked Theme conflates with the Mood structure
constituent, that is the subject (in a declarative clause), finite (in an interrogative), predicator (in
an imperative), or WH (in a WH-interrogative); the marked Theme conflates with adverbial and
prepositional group/phrase to provide circumstantial details about an activity, as in: ‘‘in this
period of Covid 19, we advise everybody to adhere to the safety procedures by health officials‘‘.
In this example, the theme which is italicised moved to the thematic position. A clause has
Theme and Rheme. Some themes are marked and some are unmarked. Marked Themes add
importance and coherence to texts through the use of theme Predication, which includes thematic
and informational choices. Topical, interpersonal and textual are the three theme types. All
clauses contain a topical theme, whereas interpersonal and textual themes are optional. Topical
Themes can be ellipsed in clauses that form a hypotactic relation.
The Rheme is the predicate part of the clause. It may involve a number of different pieces of
information, each of which may be picked up and used as the Themes in subsequent clauses.
Theme/Rheme conflates with the information focus functions of Given/New.
The system of Information Structure consists of two functional elements, Given (or Known) and
New, that are marked off in speech by tone or a pitch contour. New information is typically
marked by tonic prominence since it refers to ―what is new or unpredictable‖ and, therefore,
carries the information focus; Given information precedes New information, and it refers to
―what is already known or predictable‖ (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014: 89). Given information
is shared by the reader/writer or speaker/hearer. As the present study is concerned with written
texts, the phonological indices of the Information Structure system were not investigated in the
present study; instead, Kress and van Leeuwen‘s (1996) system of the composition of
information value is employed in the analysis of the textual organization in tables and graphs.
Though note that these broad notions of field, tenor and mode are unique to SFL and have been
crticised for giving a rather shallow and even arbitrary description of context, for example not
accounting for the properties of participants, nor conflicting interests and power relations. This is
because the ‗context of situation‘ where language is used becomes an activity. Context is,
therefore, something that unfolds together with language and is infused in language in concrete
situations.
Kress and Van Leeuwen (1996) approach is one where linguistic processes realized in clauses,
which a sub-system belongs to the ideational metafunction, can be taken as the basis of visual
grammar. In Kress and Van Leeuwen‘s model, processes in visual communication are formalized
in a way similar to language, so that we get ‗actions‘, ‗mental processes‘, ‗verbal processes‘ and
‗reaction‘ being part of a system network or classification which is six levels deep (p. 74). And,
what in linguistics is called ‗transitivity‘ how roles and actors are dependent on the processes
realized in materials come with affordances (Gibson, 1979), with different possibilities to
support action and make meaning for different actors, and as humans we develop technologies to
shape and design materials and use them in acceptable combination of use At the level of
affordance photographs do not represent time but captured moments. They can only index time
and movement and agency. We might take look at the photograph and bodily and facial
expression and pose as starting points. You can hazard a guess as to what the image in the
pictures is doing or feeling. This expression indexes, in our interpretation of the image
So this is about indexing–photos do not code processes unfolding over time, as language does,
which has to do with affordances, with photos being ‗frozen moments‘, ‗reality interrupted‘
(Sontag, 2004).
4.0 Conclusion
In this unit, we have looked at what constitute a multimodal text. How the semiotic resources in
a multimodal texts, jointly work to produce meaning. Social media platforms like Facebook,
Instagram, Whatsapp etc. are replete with multimodal texts. Does meaning conveyed now
through space, visual images and language simultaneously make understanding easier,
multimodality focuses on exploring the incorporation of the visual mode into students‘ texts to
understand what kind of visual-verbal linkages arise.
5.0 Summary
Texts which combine more than one semiotic resource for making meaning is a multimodal text.
To analyze such texts, one has to have a broad knowledge of the meaning affordance of the
different semiotic elements in a multimodal text. The three meatfunctions (ideational,
interpersonal and textual) as outline by Halliday are simultaneously embedded in each text. SFL
defines text as ‗any instance of living language that is playing some part in a context of situation‘
(Halliday & Hasan, 1989, p. 31).
How can the three metafunction of language be realized in a multimodal text?
7.0 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
Per Ledin & David Machin (2018): Doing critical discourse studies with multimodality: from
metafunctions to materiality, Critical Discourse Studies, Informa UK Limited
DOI:10.1080/17405904.2018.1468789
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a
socialsemiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.).
London: Hodder Education.
G. Kress & T. Leeuwen. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, Routledge,
London.
G. Kress & T. Leeuwen. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary
Communication Discourse, Arnold, London.
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Medias of
Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
Eggins, S. (2004) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics, 2nd edn. London:
Continuum.
MODULE 5: PRACTICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS USING DA APPROACHES
UNIT 6: APPLYING DISCOURSE ANALYSIS METHODS (COMPUTER MEDIATED

COMMUNICATION)
Contents
1.0 Introduction
3.0 Unit Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Background to Computer Mediated Communication
3.2 Computer-mediated discourse Analysis
3.3 Data and Methods in Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis

4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
This unit furthers discussion on practical discourse analysis using DA approaches. This unit will
focus on computer mediated discourse analysis as a DA approach. We are going to briefly look
at the background to Computer-mediated communication (CMC), CMC is the discourse that
takes place through computer-mediated communication technologies and occurs on platforms as
chosen by the sender of the message. We are also going to look at what Computer-mediated
discourse analysis is, data and methods in Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis
2.0 Unit Objectives
At the end of this unit you should be able to:
 Know what Computer-mediated communication is

 effectively apply discourse analysis methods to analyze participation, structure,
meaning, interaction, and social behavior in any social media platform or elsewhere,
 carry out an original CMDA that not only captures the fundamentals of language use,
but also relates it to some broader phenomenon such as social forces, community
factors, cognitive/behavioral effects of discourses
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Background to CMC
Human interaction was originally done through face-to-face channel, which is oral or verbal
communication, one of the downsides of oral communication is that it is fleeting. Writing is a
representation of verbal communication, in that thoughts are written down on any surface which
can accommodate writing. The advancement in technology has brought about electronic devices
through which people send messages across to near and long distances. Any form of
communication aided by electronic devices is computer mediated communication. This is a
recent phenomenon. It was originally designed in the United States in the late 1960's to facilitate
the transfer of computer programmes and data between remote computers in the interests of
national defence (Levy, 1984; Rheingold, 1993). This form of communication made interaction
easier. Computer mediated communication caught on almost immediately as a means of
interpersonal communication, first among computer scientists in the early 1970's (Hafner &
Lyon, 1996), then among academic and business users in elite universities and organizations in
the 1980's, and from there into popular use -- facilitated by the rise of commercial Internet
service providers -- in the 1990's and what Nigerians would refer to as business centres. The
study of computer-mediated discourse developed alongside of interactive networking itself, as
scholars became exposed to and intrigued by communication in the new medium. Scholars could
design and carry out an original CMDA research project that captures the fundamentals of
language use, and also relate it to some broader phenomenon such as social forces, community
factors, and cognitive/behavioral effects of discourses.
How do you think computer mediated communication has made the world a global village?
3.2 Computer-mediated discourse Analysis

Computer-mediated discourse (CMD) is human-to-human communication carried out over
computer networks or wireless technologies; it is produced by typing, speaking, or through using
other semiotic means. It is the discourse that takes place through computer-mediated
communication (CMC) technologies such as chat, text messaging, email, mailing lists, web
boards, blogs, microblogs, wikis, virtual worlds, social network sites, and other digital media.
Computer-mediated discourse can also be said to be the communication produced when human
beings interact with one another by transmitting messages through networked computers.
The study of computer-mediated discourse is a specialization within the broader interdisciplinary
study of computer-mediated communication (CMC), distinguished by its focus on language and
language use in computer networked environments, and by its use of methods of discourse
analysis to address that focus. Computer-mediated discourse (CMD) encompasses all kinds of
interpersonal communication carried out on the Internet, e.g., by email, instant messaging, web
discussion boards, and chat channels (Herring, 2001, 2004). In the last decade, CMD has
attracted a great deal of research attention from linguistic—especially from socio-semiotic,
pragmatic, discourse analytic, and sociolinguistic—perspectives. However, methodological
reflection is lagging behind compared to other areas of discourse studies.
Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis (CMDA) is a set of methods grounded in linguistic

discourse analysis for mining CMD for patterns of structure and meaning. CMDA methods can
also be used to extract indirect evidence of socio-cognitive phenomena related to networked
communication, such as collaboration, dis-inhibition, engagement, identity, power dynamics, and
trust. Linguistic theories and Pragmatics can be used to do CMDA. The kinds of data that can be
analysed here include: verbal text, interactions, multimodal texts, videos, GIFs and so on.
Most CMC currently in use is text-based, that is, messages are typed on a computer keyboard
and read as text on a computer screen, typically by a person or persons at a different location
from the message sender. Text-based CMC takes a variety of forms (e.g., e-mail, discussion
groups, real-time chat, virtual reality role-playing games) whose linguistic properties vary
depending on the kind of messaging system used and the social and cultural context embedding
particular instances of use. However, all such forms have in common that the activity that takes
place through them is constituted primarily – in many cases, exclusively -- by visually-presented
language. These characteristics of the medium have important consequences for understanding
the nature of computer-mediated language. They also provide a unique environment, free from
competing influences from other channels of communication and from physical context, in
which to study verbal. In recent times, CMC has also included the use of emojis to enhance
interaction and the relationship between discourse and social practice.
How is computer mediated communication different from computer mediated discourse?
3.3 Data and Methods in Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis
In terms of methodology, language-focused research on CMD has drawn on methods and key
concepts from a variety of research traditions in linguistics (including the ethnography of
communication, conversation analysis, sociolinguistics, genre analysis, and pragmatics), which
have been applied effectively to study and analyse how individuals use linguistic resources to
establish contacts, manage interactions, impart knowledge and construct identities within
computer networks. The inhibition however to CMD is critical reflection on the problems and
challenges that arise when these research traditions are applied to the new settings and
environments of CMD. For example, does a one-to-one transfer of research frameworks lead to
contextually rich understandings of language use and interactional processes in CMD, or does it
rather conceal some of its essential new aspects? Research findings suggest that CMD has
important implications for understanding key concepts in discourse studies, such as interactional
coherence, participant frameworks, intertextuality, language-identity relationships, and the
notion of community. Data collection on the Internet is not really easy at first. Researchers
conducting CMD studies are confronted with a variety of plethora of voices in internet
communication. These may relate to the size and representativeness of data samples, data
processing techniques, the delimitation of genres, and the kind and amount of contextual
information that is necessary, as well as to ethical issues such as anonymity and privacy
protection. Much research in the area has been based on small, ad-hoc data sets; there is a lack of
standard guidelines for CMD corpus design and a lack of publicly-available CMD corpora
(Beißwenger & Storrer, 2008). Adapting or reconceptualizing existing concepts and methods
seems a necessary step in the further development of CMD studies, and new research
frameworks are already emerging, such as Herring's approach to the study of online communities
(Herring, 2004). In carrying out analysis in any social media platform, you have to take into
consideration the modal affordance(s) of that platform, note whether the text is a single text or
multimodal one, note also, the interlocutors in the discursive event--is the discourse a
monologue, a dialogue or multilogue etc.? In any time of change, new discourses become
available offering us new subject positions from which to speak and read the world. The
conditions of text production and text reception are gradually transformed.
Look at any multimodal text on your Whatsapp, try and see how the modal affordance(s) of the
platform has helped the modes to jointly communicate.
4.0 Conclusion
Discourses are increasing being communicated through computer mediated means. This is as a
result of the conveniences of using social medial platforms, and also because of the rich tools
and affordance of these social media platforms.
5.0 Summary
This unit discusses what computer-mediated discourse is. We said that it is a specialization
within the broader interdisciplinary study of computer-mediated communication (CMC),
distinguished by its focus on language and language use in computer networked environments,
and by its use of methods of discourse analysis to address that focus. We also pointed out here
that CMC was originally designed in the USA in the late 1960's, this was in order to facilitate the
transfer of computer programmes and data between remote computers in the interests of national
defense.

1. Discuss how interlocutors make meaning on Whatsapp
2. Pick and discuss the importance of six emojis in communication
Halliday, M. (1978). Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and
meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. (2002). Spoken and written modes of meaning. In J. Webster (Ed.), On grammar
(pp. 323–351). London: Continuum.
Halliday, M. (2008). Complementarities in language. Beijing: Commercial Press. Halliday, M.

(2009). Methods – techniques – problems. In J. Webster (Ed.), Continuum companion to
systemic functional linguistics (pp. 59–86). London: Continuum.
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a
socialsemiotic perspective. Burwood, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language
based approach to cognition. London: Continuum.
Matthiessen, C., & Halliday, M. (2009). Systemic functional grammar: A first step into the
theory. Shanghai: Higher Education Press.
Van Leeuwen, T. (2005) Introducing Social Semiotics. Abingdon, Oxon: Routlegde.

Discourse Anslysis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discourse Anslysis PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discourse Anslysis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADVANCED DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

MODULE 1: INTRODUCTION TO DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Unit 1: What is Discourse?

3.2 Discourse Analysis

3.3 Self-Assessment Exercise

3.4 Discourse Functions

3.5 Self-Assessment Exercise

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1 What is Discourse?

Discourse analysis engages in the analysis of discourse in different discourse domains.

Other descriptions of discourse include language as meaning in interaction, and language in

3.3 Discourse Form and Functions

Mother: You‘re going to the supermarket.

Daughter: No. I have changed my mind.

Identify and discuss the functions which language performs in society.

6.0 Tutor-Marked Assignment

7.0 References/Further Reading

3.0 Origin of Discourse Analysis

At the end of this unit you should be able to do the following:

 Identify the origin of discourse analysis

3.0 Origin of Discourse Analysis

4.0 The Earliest Studies of Discourse Analysis

5.0 Recent Developments in the Field of Discourse Analysis

8.0 References/Further Reading

Unit 3: DISCOURSE AND DISCOURSES

At the end of this unit, you should be able to:

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1. DISCOURSE FORMS

Source: Source: National Open University of Nigeria staff (2020)

Fig.1 different pictures of people in a monologic discourse

Source: National Open University of Nigeria staff (2020)

Fig. 2 Different dialogic settings

Sample discourse between two friends (dialogue):

Fig.3 Different pictures of multilogue (teleconferencing, meetings)

Sample Multilogue between bankers in a teleconference:

All participants: yes sir.

3.2 CLASSIFICATIONS OF DISCOURSE

3.2.1 Classification according to discipline

3.2.2 Classification according to function

A discourse can be classified as argumentative if its purpose is to convince through logic.

3.3 Self-Assessment Exercises

6.0 Tutor Marked Assignment

7.0 References/Further Reading

Locke, Terry. Critical Discourse of Analysis. London: Continuum International Publishing

Osisanwo, W. (2003). Introduction to discourse analysis and pragmatics. Lagos: Femolus-Fetop

Van Dijk, Teun A. (1984a) Prejudice in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Web source: https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/product/Osborn-Public-Speaking-

UNIT 4: CONCEPTS IN DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

2.0 Unit Objectives

3.0 MAIN CONTENT

3.1.1 The notion of text

3.1.2 The notion of ‗Discourse‘ in Discourse Analysis

3.1.3 The role of context in Discourse Analysis

1. The bear is beautiful

Presupposition is an assumption or belief in an utterance mainly in language use; it is a

Implicature is what is implied in an utterance or in a behaviour. The term 'implicature' is used by

Speaker one: I am hungry

Speaker two: there is a restaurant down the street.

3,2 Distinction Between Text And Discourse