Overview of Discourse Analysis Definition and Use

Generally speaking, discourse analysis is the study of language in use; how it functions and how meaning is created in different social contexts. There are various approaches to it; some of them look at the ‘structure’ of language, others examine the ‘content’ of language being used, that is, themes of conversation or written text. Different linguists use different approaches to analyse discourse; some use ‘descriptive’ method where they describe how language works in order to understand it, while others adopt ‘critical’ approach- critical discourse analysis- where they describe how language works in relationship with social or political issues (Gee, 2014, p9).

The term ‘discourse analysis’ in the common sense of meaning, refers to examine how language functions in relation to its social context. Flowerdew opines that the term ‘discourse’ has various implications but in the broader sense it signifies language in its contexts of use which takes into account language above the level of sentence (2012, p1). He further points out that the term ‘discourse’ can also mean a particular set of ideas and how they are articulated, for example, the discourse of environmentalism, feminism and neoliberalism. Here the term refers to a type of specialised knowledge and language used by a particular social group. Knowing a language is something more than just grammar and vocabulary; it includes how to participate in a conversation or how to structure a written text, therefore, it is vital to consider the context of language in which it occurs, which, in turn, highlights the need for contextualised and suprasentential consideration of language.

According to Paltridge (2014, p3) the relationship between language and context is fundamental to the works of J.R. Firth and Michael Halliday; Firth argues that in order to understand the meaning of what a person says or writes, we need to know the situation and culture in which it happens. For him linguistics is essentially the study of “linguistic events in the social process” (1957, p181). Firth (1935) thought of speech in terms of speech functions rather than the situations in which they occur. He argued the need for “the adequate description and classification of contexts of situation” (p28). Language being a way of dealing and behaving with people, he goes on to provide a list of such functions such as wishing, blessing, boasting, cursing, praise, flattery, love making and so on (p31). This discussion is taken further by Halliday (1971) by linking context of situation with actual texts, and context of culture with potential texts. Halliday further sees language as part of the wider socio-cultural context, as ‘social semiotic’ where the aim is “to look into language from the outside and specifically, to interpret linguistic processes from the standpoint of the social order” (1978, p3).

‘Discourse analysis’ considers a wide range of approaches in various disciplines; It usually refers to a research approach in which language material - spoken or written - is examined as evidence phenomena beyond the individual person (Taylor, 2013, p2).

Rashidi and Rafieerad regard discourse analysis as a diverse area of research of speech through shedding light on functions and structure of language. According to them, it is “the examination of language used by members of a speech community.” They further add that “it identifies linguistic features that characterise different genres as well as social and cultural factors that aid us in our interpretation and understanding of different texts and types of talk.” (2010, p95).

Discourse studies, according to Flowerdew (2012, p3), may adopt various approaches to analysis, such as, register analysis, cohesion, coherence, thematic development, genre analysis and so on.

In Britain, discourse analysis was influenced by Halliday’s functional approach to language, such as Halliday (1973). Halliday’s approach emphasises the informational structure of speech and writing, and the social function of language. American discourse analysis was dominated by work within the ethnomethodological tradition, emphasising the method of close observation of groups of people communicating in natural settings such as greeting rituals, storytelling and so on. This is often mentioned as conversation analysis, in the American tradition, where the emphasis is not upon building structural models but on the close observation of the behaviour of participants in talk or conversation.

Discourse analysis is part of applied linguistics but does not belong exclusively to it; it is a multi-disciplinary field, and hugely diverse in the range of its interests. For many the interest in discourse is beyond language in use to “language use relative to social, political and cultural formations . . . , language reflecting social order but also language shaping social order, and shaping individuals’ interaction with society.” (Trappes, 2004, p133). Taylor (2013, p2) asserts that discourse analysts work with language data, including talk, documents and broadcast material. Researchers in different traditions study interactions and social practices, meaning-making and larger meaning systems, and contests and conflicts around collective identities, social norms and subjectification. Brown (1983, p1) asserts that while a linguist concentrates on determining the formal properties of a language, a discourse analyst focuses on what that language is used for. Therefore, discourse analysis is a vast area within linguistics where the examination of both, spoken and written language can reveal the relationship between language itself and the contexts in which it is used. It examines language in use: all kinds of written text, spoken data, and from conversation to highly institutionalised forms of talk.

Discourse analysis merits a special topic within linguistics as these analysts do what people do instinctively and unconsciously in their everyday language experience such as notice patterns of language in use and circumstances with which they are associated. It was Zellig Harris, Chomsky’s teacher, who coined the term ‘discourse analysis’ in 1952, observing that “Language does not occur in stray words or sentences, but in connected discourse—from a one-word utterance to a ten-volume work, from a monolog to a Union Square argument” (Harris,1952, p3). Depending on the context in which it is used, the meaning of the term ‘discourse’ may vary within linguistics. Linguistics, by looking at real authentic discourse in relation to context, have gained a considerable understanding of the way language works. The importance of discourse analysis in linguistics is due to the fact that “it enables applied linguistics to analyse and understand real data”.

Language being a social and functional phenomenon, discourse studies have contributed a lot to general study of language. The data analysed by linguists can be either spoken or written. It has been found out that both speech and writing have linguistic complexity and that spoken language is no less structured than written language. Discourse analysis also refers to the study of linguistic structure, that is, beyond sentence and the study of social practices associated with language or communication. Broadly speaking, it can be stated that discourse analysis examines communication viewed linguistically. Depending on their affiliations and interests, linguists tend to emphasize one or the other concept of language in use - language in situational and cultural contexts, language above or beyond the sentence or language in interaction and so on. In other words, (Trappes-Lomax, 2004, p1) discourse analysts contribute to do the noticing – of patterns of language in use and the circumstances - deliberately and systematically, to interpret and explain what their investigations have revealed. Discourse analysis is part of applied linguistics and has a vital role to play but it does not belong exclusively to it; it is hugely diverse and multi-disciplinary field. Widdowson states that in order to account for discourse, one needs to be clear about the nature of context, for it is only when the linguistic features of the text are related to contextual factors that discourse is realised (2004, p18). It can be stated that discourse analysis examines details of speech that people deploy so as to convey social meaning by means of core components of language, for instance, morphology, phonetics, phonology and syntax.

Discourse analysis is of great and immediate interest to language teachers in that how real people use real language rather than artificially created sentences. Language teachers probe into the use of language while designing teaching materials or activities to keep learners engaged in order to make them proficient users of their target language. According to Flowerdew (2012, p2), discourse in English language education introduces learners to the major concepts and questions in discourse studies and their applications to language learning and teaching. Olshtain and Celce-Murcia (2001, p707) are of the opinion that language teaching, like linguistics, used the sentence as its basic unit of analysis for many years during the twentieth century; this meant that rules, activities and exercises focused on individual sentences which can be interesting but when separated from context, they lack real meaning. This was decontextualized language practice approach where learners practiced sentences in the target language but were incapable of linking them into meaningful stretches of discourse. More recent approaches focus on discourse/text, within larger meaningful context, as the basic unit of analysis, therefore, learners focus on various discourse features within any language activity. With the popularity of the most recent communicative language teaching approach, the learners may never achieve full linguistic competence but still can communicate in the target language. In fact, teacher and learners in a language classroom form a discourse community- a group of people sharing a few things like, specific knowledge, culture, common language and physical environment- which creates its own context where the teacher and learners can develop cross-cultural discourse practices. Olshtain and Celce-Murcia (2001, p707) are of the view that a language teacher’s role cannot be restricted to a grammarian or an educator but should be extended to be a sociolinguist who is interested in various aspects of discourse analysis.

Discourse analysis has, in fact, grown into a wide-ranging discipline in the description of language above the sentence and an interest in the contexts and cultural influences which affect language in use. It examines, according to Paltridge, patterns of language across texts and considers the relationship between language and, social and cultural contexts in which it is used. It also studies not only how the use of language is influenced by relationships between participants but also the effects it has upon relations and social identities (2012, p2).

This field of study provides meaningful insights into how breakdowns in communication are over come in language acquisition by comparing and analysing how foreign and native speakers use language within social context (Berrocal et al., 2016, p217).

To summarise, discourse analysis can take both functional and structural approaches; where functional approach considers specific meanings associated with what is written or said and, structural analysis examines how elements of language combine together to form coherent units. Discourse analysis is, therefore, concerned with the description and analysis of spoken and written interactions; spoken being professional meetings, classroom lessons, casual conversations and many others and, written being textbooks, newspapers, letters, emails and so on (Flowerdew, 2012, p3). In modern era with the rise of technology, discourse analysis has widened its field by taking into account visual dimensions like websites, movies and advertisements. It occupies a significant place in linguistics and, is also forming a backdrop to research, particularly, in second language teaching and learning.

References

1. Berrocal, M.L., Villegas, V.M. and Barquero, V.V. (2016). Bringing critical discourse analysis into the foreign language classroom: A case study of a Taiwanese learner of Spanish in Costa Rica. Revista de lenguas modernas, (24).
2. Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Firth, J.R. (1935). The Technique of Semantics. Transactions of the philological society, 34(1), 36-73.
4. Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in Linguistics (1934–51). London: Oxford University Press.
5. Flowerdew, J. (2012). Discourse in English Language Education. Routledge.
6. Gee, J.P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis, Theory and Method, Routledge.
7. Gee, J.P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, Theory and Method, London: Routledge.
8. Halliday, M.A.K. (1971). Language in a social perspective. Educational Review, 23(3), 165-188.
9. Halliday, M.A.K. (2007). Language in a social perspective (1971). Language and Society. Collected works of MAK Halliday, 10, 43-64.
10. Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language, London: Edward Arnold, Cop.
11. Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic, The social interpretation of language and meaning. Hodder Arnold.
12. Halliday, M. (1978). Language as a Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
13. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978) Language as social semiotic. London: Arnold
14. Harris, Z.S. (1952). Discourse Analysis. Language, 28(1), 1.
15. Haugen, E. and Firth, J.R. (1958). Papers in linguistics 1934-1951. Language, 34(4), 498.
16. Olshtain, E. and Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Discourse Analysis and Language Teaching. The handbook of discourse analysis, 36, 707.
17. Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis, an introduction, 2nd ed. London: Continuum.
18. Paltridge, B.et al. (2014). Discourse analysis an introduction, London: Bloomsbury.
19. Rashidi, N. and Rafieerad, M. (2010). Analyzing Patterns of Classroom Interaction in EFL Classrooms in Iran. The Journal Of Asia TEFL, 7(3), 93-120.
20. Taylor, S. (2013). What is discourse analysis? London: Bloomsbury Academic.
21. Trappes-Lomax, H. (2004). Discourse analysis. The handbook of applied linguistics, 133-164.
22. Widdowson, H.G. (2004). Text, context, pretext, critical issues in discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Available from https://uow.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9780470758427.
23. Widdowson, H. G. (2004). Text, Context, Pretext, Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.