What is discourse analysis? Discuss with reference to multidisciplinarity and a selection of relevant theoretical approaches

by tydael (student)

University Degree Linguistics, Classics and related subjects

Ninn GoldsworthyEN20211009697

Ninn Goldsworthy

1009697

What is discourse analysis? Discuss with reference to multidisciplinarity and a selection of relevant theoretical approaches.

EN2021

This essay will try to answer the question of what discourse analysis is and what methods can be used to evaluate the spoken and written word. Dealing with two main example of analysing discourse, written and oral, this essay will provide examples of how these methods of analysing discourse work within the field, and how they link to analysing discourse as a whole.

Discourse analysis involves looking behind the written and spoken word and being able to explain the differences between all that is said and written. (Rogers, R. & Mosley, M et al. 2005, Pg: 365). It is a little hard to determine the words discourse analysis accurately as there are several known definitions of discourse. In some definitions, discourse refers to the text that it is written in, or it may be that it denotes speech. (Crystal, 1992, Pg: 91) wrote that: ‘Discourse: a continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as sermon, argument, joke or narrative’ whether written, or spoken, discourse remains an intriguing and fascinating subject. The phrase ‘Discourse Analysis’ was first introduced in 1952 by Zellig Harri. Harris wrote:

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 (Harris, 1952 as found in Paltridge, 2011, Pg: 2)

The multimodality of discourse analysis is such that multiple sources can be used for resourcing text or material. The different types of analysing data or written discourse are an endless list. Discourse analysis is not one thing or another, but a paradox to be unravelled time and time again and analysed, different each time by each different person. Analysing discourse is to see beyond the word, the clause, the phrase and the sentence that is needed for effective communication. Harris is quoted as saying that ‘there is a relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic behaviour’ (Paltridge, B. 2011, Pg: 3). to be fully aware of, the differences between different kinds of discourse, an analyst would use the terms ‘texts’ and ‘discourses’. The former ‘texts’, refers to the linguistic use within compositions, and the latter ‘discourses’, implies the variability of the process. In language study, implicates the use of language, regional dialects and admissible statements within an enclosed or autonomous people such as those found on housing estates or ethnic minorities. (Upton, T. & Cohen, and M. 2009 Pg: 585). The people who live in isolated communities and share similar speech patterns and similar thoughts and ideas are called a discourse community to give but one example of how discourse analysis works. Analysists have studied these communities for extended periods of time in order to assess and research these findings thoroughly.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

This is a preview of the whole essay

There are no set ‘texts’ that are studied in discourse analysis. Discourse analysts study any language in any form. Oral analysis, the study of spoken dialogue can be separated into several different categories according to how the discourse is being delivered. For example, a telephone conversation between a customer and a manager or between two friends from university. What is looked at is how the person conducts themselves in different situations. Oral discourse has more of an interchangeable nature, as, for example, when a tutor is giving a lecture. The delivery is quite formal, more than when the tutor is discussing other topics with the students, or when there are question and answer sessions. Halliday in (Paltridge, B. 2011, Pg: 24). Argued that ‘speech is no less highly organised than writing. Spoken discourse has its own kind of complexity.’ A person’s mannerism can vary, according to the situation that they are in. For example, a speaker changes between politeness and impoliteness in a way to manipulate a situation in order to gain advantage over the other speaker and vice versa. Oral discourse also changes according to gender and ethnicity. But it is not entirely constrained to these factors. Spoken discourse can also be about politeness and face. ‘Politeness and face are important for understanding why people choose, to say things in a particular way, in spoken or written discourse’. (Paltridge, B. 2011, Pg: 72). These examples are from the study of oral discourse, an analysts listens to a speaker, notes the pitch, tone and language that is being used to convey the speech spoken. The analyst would also be noting body language and facial expressions as these have a high indicator of meaning in expression. Analysing oral discourse is important in the field of discourse analysis as it helps comprehend language. Benjamin Whorf once said ‘Linguistic order embraces all symbolic processes, all processes of reference and logic’ (Whorf, 1956. Pg: 134) By analysing the order of which speech is delivered and the references to body language and expression, the analyst can ascertain what hidden, if any, denotation of speech is underlying.

The main difference between spoken and written discourse is that writing requires is a vehicle such as a pen and paper and keeps a record of the discourse, whereas all speech requires is air and the human vocal chords. There are other differences, between the two genres, that may not be so obvious, to a non-discourse analyst. A speaker delivers his vocal dialogue at a pace that is suitable for the audience that is listening, even if it may not be to the listeners’ comprehension. The listener may ask for repetition. It is incredibly difficult to communicate with someone when all the sentences have to be repeated over and over again. (Upton, T. & Cohen, M. 2009. Pg: 585) . Furthermore, the spontaneity of spoken discourse, can lead to mistakes, repetition, or a lack of coherence. Grunts, stutters, or long, subjective pauses during an address, or delivery of, spoken discourse, may have some sort of meaning. The person speaking may well know the person to whom they speak, or the listeners, to whom they speak, and he or she may be at least aware that their audience is listening. In contrast, writing develops in a way that allows information to be recorded. The reader can ask for clarification, and relies on the division into paragraphs and with the overall structure and appropriate use of grammar being of paramount importance to make comprehension easier. In Analysing Discourse Paltridge (2011) quotes Halliday as saying:

There is also a high level of nominalization in written texts; that is, where actions and events are presented as nouns rather than verbs. Halliday (1989) calls this grammatical metaphor, that is, where a language item is transferred from a mere expected grammatical class to another (Halliday, in Paltridge, B. 2011, and Pg: 15).

Another aspect of written discourse and not of oral discourse is the use of organizational tables or charts which can only be used in its written form. Although there are divisions between the two types of discourse it is possible to combine the two together. An example of this is a tutor using a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the spoken word of the lecture they are giving, or writing illustration on the whiteboard. Discourse analysis is linguistic research, which analyses the use of language. The main concern is the study of the functions of language both orally and written. Although quite distinct differences between the two, they sometimes join or overlap. American linguist, Benjamin Whorf, is quoted as saying ‘Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about’ (Whorf, 1956. Pg: 213) Discourse analysis is neither a qualitative or quantative research method but rather questions the basic assumptions of these two methods. By analysing spoken or written language, an analyst may be able to ascertain possible hidden motivations behind a text as an example. Discourse analysis is the deconstructing or breaking down of language and by focusing on the segments of text or speech, it may be possible to have a higher understanding of a piece of information conveyed. Discourse analysis extensively studies the written, signed and spoken language and concerns all facets of linguistic behaviour. (Upton, T. & Cohen, M. 2009. Pg: 585). Pragmatic analysis of the combination of signed, written and spoken dialogue is also of significance in the study of discourse. It’s a study ‘of meaning in relation to the context in which a person is speaking or writing’ in (Paltridge, B. 2011. Pg: 53). Discourse analysis also looks into the meanings that are constructed in text. Textuality is especially valuable as it examines how language is used in both individual and related texts. The study of language characteristics within different communities and different social classes of any community are also of considerable interest in the study of discourse. Benjamin Whorf is quoted as stating ‘We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language. Language is not simply a reporting device for experience but a defining framework for it.’ (Whorf, 1956. Pg: 213) such examinations, have resulted in the discovery of how turn taking is different in each culture, and sub culture. In addition, to how standards in the use of politeness, during conversational discourse, varies. For successful discourse analysis attention has to be paid to the structure, form, organisation, order or patterns which are characteristics of all approaches to discourse analysis. The observation of politeness within a text or conversation highlights the social structure to which the discourse is being used.

Various types and classes of written discourse are available depending, to which purpose, they are being used for. Written language is also less conversive than spoken discourse as it is achieved by the frequent use of cohesive devices. Apart from linking the clauses, or sentences, each are additionally applied to enunciate notions that are of particular preference. This enables the reader to understand the chosen information whilst on the same degree, eliminate unnecessary information or sections.

In summary, discourse analysis is defined by the knowledge of language and its uses both within written and spoken discourse. Discourse analysis takes into considerations the differences in cultures and genres and offers an understanding how the languages of the different cultures and communities interact with each other. Having an understanding of discourse allows for better understanding of both verbalisation and written concepts. There appears to be no limitation to the study of discourse. Discourse analysis is a theoretical approach to language that looks at the patterns across the texts as well as the social and cultural contexts. The relationships between the languages and the social context and the way in which it is delivered all have relevancy to the outcome of a work of discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is an interesting but never ending academic study. The on-going research within this field helps others to understand the pragmatics of language and the position of discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is a wider understanding of human language, and the reasons behind communication. Discourse analysis unravels the paradoxical phenomenon that is speech and text.

1974

Bibliography:

Alvesson, M. & Karreman, D. (2000). ‘Varieties in discourse: On the study of organisations through discourse analysis’ Human Relations. Volume: 53(112) 5, Sage Publications [online]. Available at: (Accessed: 12 December 2011)

Crystal, D. (1992) Introducing Linguistics. Harlow, Penguin.

Rogers, R. & Mosley, M et al. (2005). ‘Critical discourse analysis in Education: A review of literature’. Review of Educational research. Volume: 75 (3) 365. Sage Publications [online]. Available at: . (Accessed: 12 December 2011)

Paltridge, B. (2011) Discourse Analysis. London. Continuum.

Upton, T. & Cohen, M. (2009) ‘An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis: The move analysis as example.’ Discourse Studies. Volume: 11(5) 585. Sage Publications [online]. Available at: . (Accessed: 12 December 2011)

Whorf, B.L. (1956) Language, thought and Reality. New York. MIT press.