DISCOURSE refers to:

1. Discourse analysis:
Discourse is a linguistic unit composed of several sentences. The study of discourse is called
discourse analysis. Discourse analysis involves questions of style, appropriateness, cohesiveness,
rhetorical force, topic/subtopic structure, differences between written and spoken discourse, and
so on.

Discourse, to be called so, must have the following features:

Cohesion- grammatical relationship between parts of a sentence essential for its interpretation
Coherence- the order of statements relates one another by sense
Intentionality- the message has to be conveyed deliberately and consciously
Acceptability- indicates that the communicative product needs to be satisfacatory in that the
audience appoves it
Informativeness- some new information has to be included in the discourse
Situationality- circumstances in which the remark is made are important
Intertextuality- reference to the world outside the text or the interpreters schemata

Students studying discourse analysis must undertake the analysis of discourse (a statement which
may seem too obvious to mention but which is belied by evidence that, as Antaki et al
(2003) point out, published papers on discourse are frequently flawed by under-analysis of
discourse data). On my courses, before any theories have been introduced and before any
typical discourse material is discussed, students are encouraged to collect their own small
sample of data and attend the first class ready to say something about it: e.g. to examine thematic
links in the text and to analyse its structure and texture; to consider the construction and
interpretation of meaning in the discourse (and to reflect on their role, as researcher, in
interpreting the discourse); to discuss whether the discourse can be classified as belonging to a
particular register or genre (and to examine how, for example, the interactional routines common
to one type of discourse may be employed in other types for particular effect); to analyse the
discourse in relation to assumptions made about the relationship between speaker/signer/writer
and the recipient of the communicative message(s). In this way, students are introduced to
important ideas at the outset of their studies and concepts which students find difficult to
understand in the abstract presupposition, (synthetic) personalisation and intertextuality, for
example are made more accessible by being grounded in students own experience of
collecting, analysing and interpreting discourse data.

From such beginnings, students soon learn that discourse analysis is applicable to every
situation, and collecting and working with discourse data naturally becomes an integral aspect of
all classes - whether the topic of such classes be focussed on a particular approach (Ethnography,
Conversation Analysis etc.) or a particular context in which discourse analysis can be applied
(e.g. the media, politics, law, medicine, religion, education). Indeed, the study of discourse
analysis provides the opportunity to pursue a wide variety of practical learning and teaching
activities. The following are just a few examples:

Students can be encouraged to build a mini-corpus of data and, for example, to collect
and analyse examples of a particular discourse type constructed in an array of diverse
contexts: e.g. the language of political manifestos, campaigns, speeches and televised
debates.
Students benefit from the opportunity to undertake comparative analysis. For example,
much can be learnt about the nature and importance of target audience in advertising
discourse by the comparison of, for instance, car adverts that appear in magazines aimed
at women and men. Public health information constructed across cultures provides
interesting data for comparative study and the analysis of texts constructed at different
periods in time is also revealing: e.g. contrasting political speeches of the past with those
of the present highlights the particular features of each text and brings students to an
understanding of, for instance, the ongoing and increasing mediatization of political
discourse.
Students should be encouraged to critically examine a form of (institutional) discourse in
which they are regular and active participants. Experience reveals that learners often find
it enlightening to analyse the conventions they follow in constructing an academic essay,
for example. Such analysis leads students to a critical understanding of the traditional
requirement for objectivity in academic writing and to consider what is perceived to
constitute legitimate knowledge in this form of discourse. A similarly critical
perspective can be encouraged in examining the typical interactional routines of
university seminars: how are rights to speak distributed? How is topic managed? What
inferences are drawn about silent students?

It is in working with texts, and actually carrying out discourse analysis, that students can be led
to an understanding of how human beings engage in discourse which shapes the way they
construct themselves and their relationships with others. Students also come to understand how
their engagement with texts and talk (in particular social and cultural contexts) can challenge and
alter dominant discourses. The opportunity for such learning goes beyond the confines of the
university campus, and students involvement with the subject is often revealed when they
remark that they are finding it difficult to, for example, listen to news broadcasts, have a
consultation with their GP or read a letter from their bank without becoming, to use their words,
hyper-aware of the construction of texts and talk in such institutional settings and of the social
roles that such discourses prescribe.

This level of awareness can be cultivated in class activities such as student-led discussions and
debates. I find that the most fruitful starting point for such discussions is students oral
presentations of discourse data. Presentations to peers are a particularly useful activity since they
encourage presenters to reflect upon their own interpretations of a text in the light of alternative
ways of approaching the data suggested by their peers. From this point, students can be
encouraged to reflect upon the reasons for different interpretations and to consider, for example,
the analysis of stance in the text (as the expression of a speakers or writers value-system in
the text produced), as well as their own (social and cultural) experience in seeking meaning from
a text. Teaching discourse analysis therefore offers the opportunity to encourage students
towards independent learning and the type of critical thinking which is vital not only for all areas
of academic study but also for life-long education.

Some types of spoken discourse

It is not an easy job to predict all types of spoken discourse because a person encounters different
types of speech even within a single day. Conversations vary in their settings and degree of
structuredness. Some types of speech are as follows:
Telephone calls (Business and private)
Classroom (Classes, lectures, tutorials, seminars)
Interviews (Jobs, journalistic, in official settings)
Service encounters (Hotels, ticket offices, shops, etc.)
Rituals (Prayers, sermons, weddings)
Language-in-action (Talk accompanying doing: fixing, cooking, demonstrating,
assembling, etc.)
Monologues (Strangers, relatives, friends)
Organizing and directing people (Work, home, in the street)

One should look closely at the forms and patterns of different types of spoken discourse.
Different roles and settings generate different forms and structures, and discourse analysts try to
observe in natural data just what patterns occur in particular settings.
Some types of written discourse

Everyday people come into contact with written texts and interpret their meanings so as to get
what they intend. We can never think of a literate man who never writes or tries to write
something. Like spoken discourse, written discourse is also of many kinds as:
Newspaper
Poem
Letter to/from friend
Business letter
Instruction leaflet
Literary publication
Public notice
Academic article
Small ads
It is certain that most people will read more of the text types mentioned above than actually write
them. Both spoken and written discourse perform different functions in society, use different
forms, and exhibit different linguistic characteristics.