First semester-January 2015

Discourse Analysis(Eng 645)

Discourse can be defined in three ways:

Language beyond the level of a sentence

Language behaviours linked to social practices
Language as a system of thought

Discourse Analysis (DA) is a modern discipline of the social sciences that covers a wide variety
of different sociolinguistic approaches. It aims to study and analyse the use of discourse in at
least one of the three ways stated above, and more often than not, all of them at once. Analysis of
discourse looks not only at the basic level of what is said, but takes into consideration the
surrounding social and historical contexts. As Sam Kirkham mentions in the video below,
making the distinction between whether a person is described as a terrorist or a freedom
fighter is something DA would look at, whilst considering the implications of each term. To
expand, 'terrorist' is a term that brings negative connotations of evil and violence, whereas
'freedom fighter' has positive connotations of fighting towards political upheaval of dictatorships.
So, one term is looked upon a lot more favourably than the other, and this is what a Discourse
Analyst would consider, as well as looking at the relationship of these terms with a widely used
term such as Muslim. Discourse analysts will look at any given text, and this just means
anything that communicates a message, and particularly, how that message constructs a social
reality or view of the world.

A sub-discipline of DA is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and this looks at discourse from
a politically motivated level. An analyst in this field will identify a topic for analysis, and then
collect a corpus of texts, before finally analysing it to identify how language is used to reproduce
ideologies in the text. A corpus is large, structured electronic database of texts, often used in
linguistics. Using a corpus isn't the only method of analysis in CDA, as any method which
provides an insight into ideology in discourse is accepted by researchers. CDA will look at the
different levels of a text; the macro, meso and micro levels, but this is discussed more in depth in
the Example Research section.

Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis is based on the understanding that there is much more going on when people
communicate than simply the transfer of information. It is not an effort to capture literal
meanings; rather it is the investigation of what language does or what individuals or cultures
accomplish through language. This area of study raises questions such as how meaning is
constructed, and how power functions in society.
 A discourse can be studied as something separate from
the individual authors or speakers. It can refer to something that exists in society and upon which
we draw in order to communicate with others. In a useful distinction, James Paul Gee (2005)
describes the differences between discourse with a lowercase letter d and discourse with an
uppercase letter D. The lowercase d discourses are invoked in localized settings and may
pertain to the isolated context where the discourse is being shared. On the other hand, uppercase
D Discourses are integral parts of the culture in which they are used, and can be found across
diverse texts. While the same text may have both lowercase and uppercase d discourses, the
functions of those discourses are different and their analysis is treated differently. The analysis of
both localized and cultural discourses has become an integral part of qualitative research in the
social sciences and education since the post-modern turn.

To conduct discourse analysis, a researcher generally selects texts. The term text connotes a
wide-range of possible data sources including transcripts of recorded interviews, movie scripts,
advertisements, or a companys internal documents. Discourse analysts usually select texts that
are as complete as possible an interview transcript may be written up including all of the
pauses, errors, and corrections. Carla Willig (2008) provides an example of how conducting a
discourse analysis from the hand written notes of a researcher during a conversation is likely not
ideal because the researchers notes of an interview may not have in the moment captured the
nuances of the interview. Therefore, any interpretation of these notes is more of an interpretation
of the interviewers perceptions of whats important rather than an interpretation of the subjects
discourses.

There are a number of divisions and distinctions that have been drawn to explain the ways in
which discourse is analyzed. One useful simple distinction is that the study of discourse can be
divided into three domains: the study of social interaction, the study of minds, selves, and sense-
making, and the study of culture and social relations (Wetherell, Taylor, & Yates, 2001(2), p.5).
This has also been further divided into the following six different traditions (Wetherell, Taylor,
& Yates, 2001(1)):

Conversation analysis Critical discourse analysis (CDA) and critical linguistics

Foucauldian research
Discursive psychology
Interactional sociolinguistics and the ethnography of communication
 Bakhtinian research

While the six traditions outlined above provide some general guideposts as to what kinds of
research within the field of discourse studies exist, it is important to note that the study of
discourse spans many different disciplines within the social sciences, humanities, and natural
sciences. It can also be qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. Moreover, it is not even
possible to isolate only one philosophical tradition or epistemology that informs the study of
discourse (Wetherell, Taylor, and Yates, 2001). So it is more important to be clear about what
traditions and theories are informing your method of analyzing discourse than it is to assume that
discourse analysis can only be conducted one way.

Works cited
Edwards, D. (1997) Discourse and cognition. London and Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Gee, J.P. (2005) An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York and London: Routledge.
Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. & Yates, S.J. (2001) Discourse as data: A guide for analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. & Yates, S.J. (2001) Discourse theory and practice: A reader. London: Sage Publications.
Willig, C. (2008) Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and method. New York: McGraw Hill and Open University.

Discourse AnalysisWhat Speakers Do in

Conversation

Discourse analysis is sometimes defined as the analysis of language 'beyond the sentence'. This
contrasts with types of analysis more typical of modern linguistics, which are chiefly concerned
with the study of grammar: the study of smaller bits of language, such as sounds (phonetics and
phonology), parts of words (morphology), meaning (semantics), and the order of words in
sentences (syntax). Discourse analysts study larger chunks of language as they flow together.

Some discourse analysts consider the larger discourse context in order to understand how it
affects the meaning of the sentence. For example, Charles Fillmore points out that two sentences
taken together as a single discourse can have meanings different from each one taken separately.
To illustrate, he asks you to imagine two independent signs at a swimming pool: "Please use the
toilet, not the pool," says one. The other announces, "Pool for members only." If you regard each
sign independently, they seem quite reasonable. But taking them together as a single discourse
makes you go back and revise your interpretation of the first sentence after you've read the
second.

Discourse and Frames

'Reframing' is a way to talk about going back and re-interpreting the meaning of the first
sentence. Frame analysis is a type of discourse analysis that asks, What activity are speakers
engaged in when they say this? What do they think they are doing by talking in this way at this
time? Consider how hard it is to make sense of what you are hearing or reading if you don't
know who's talking or what the general topic is. When you read a newspaper, you need to know
whether you are reading a news story, an editorial, or an advertisement in order to properly
interpret the text you are reading. Years ago, when Orson Welles' radio play "The War of the
Worlds" was broadcast, some listeners who tuned in late panicked, thinking they were hearing
the actual end of the world. They mistook the frame for news instead of drama.

Turn-taking

Conversation is an enterprise in which one person speaks, and another listens. Discourse analysts
who study conversation note that speakers have systems for determining when one person's turn
is over and the next person's turn begins. This exchange of turns or 'floors' is signaled by such
linguistic means as intonation, pausing, and phrasing. Some people await a clear pause before
beginning to speak, but others assume that 'winding down' is an invitation to someone else to
take the floor. When speakers have different assumptions about how turn exchanges are signaled,
they may inadvertently interrupt or feel interrupted. On the other hand, speakers also frequently
take the floor even though they know the other speaker has not invited them to do so.

Listenership too may be signaled in different ways. Some people expect frequent nodding as well
as listener feedback such as 'mhm', 'uhuh', and 'yeah'. Less of this than you expect can create the
impression that someone is not listening; more than you expect can give the impression that you
are being rushed along. For some, eye contact is expected nearly continually; for others, it should
only be intermittent. The type of listener response you get can change how you speak: If
someone seems uninterested or uncomprehending (whether or not they truly are), you may slow
down, repeat, or overexplain, giving the impression you are 'talking down.' Frederick Erickson
has shown that this can occur in conversations between black and white speakers, because of
different habits with regard to showing listenership.

Discourse Markers

'Discourse markers' is the term linguists give to the little words like 'well', 'oh', 'but', and 'and'
that break our speech up into parts and show the relation between parts. 'Oh' prepares the hearer
for a surprising or just-remembered item, and 'but' indicates that sentence to follow is in
opposition to the one before. However, these markers don't necessarily mean what the dictionary
says they mean. Some people use 'and' just to start a new thought, and some people put 'but' at
the end of their sentences, as a way of trailing off gently. Realizing that these words can function
as discourse markers is important to prevent the frustration that can be experienced if you expect
every word to have its dictionary meaning every time it's used.

Speech Acts

Speech act analysis asks not what form the utterance takes but what it does. Saying "I now
pronounce you man and wife" enacts a marriage. Studying speech acts such as complimenting
allows discourse analysts to ask what counts as a compliment, who gives compliments to whom,
and what other function they can serve. For example, linguists have observed that women are
more likely both to give compliments and to get them. There are also cultural differences; in
India, politeness requires that if someone compliments one of your possessions, you should offer
to give the item as a gift, so complimenting can be a way of asking for things. An Indian woman
who had just met her son's American wife was shocked to hear her new daughter-in-law praise
her beautiful saris. She commented, "What kind of girl did he marry? She wants everything!" By
comparing how people in different cultures use language, discourse analysts hope to make a
contribution to improving cross-cultural understanding.

by

Deborah Tannen