SUMMARY

What is discourse analysis?

Discourse can be defined in two ways:
1. A structural definition of discourse defines it as a unit of language above
the level of the sentence. This approach looks for constituents which have
particular relationships with each other and that can occur in a restricted number of
arrangements. The problem with this approach is that the units in which people
speak do not look like sentences and are often not grammatically correct.
2. A functional approach to discourse claims that language has multiple
functions. The task of discourse analysis using this approach is to analyse the
functions of language, the way that language is used (meaning as use), what we
do with language when we use it. In other words discourse analysis views
discourse as a social phenomenon rather than a purely linguistic one.
Discourse analysis influences and is influenced by a number of other
disciplines. It is highly practical and is used in all areas of communication
(especially institutional areas such as medicine, law and education) and with all
forms of talk speech and written texts, everyday language, specialised language,
formal and informal language. Discourse analysis also examines how language is
used to sustain social institutions and manipulate opinion; how it is used in the
expression of ideology and the exercise of power. Discourse analysis can also be
used to develop awareness of linguistic features in the interpretation of literary
texts.
Discourse refers to both written texts and oral texts. It is important to
identify whether a text is written or oral. There are also some texts which have
both written and oral characteristics at the same time. Internet chat for example is
essentially a written form of speech. On the other hand a university lecture may be
a spoken form of writing. So it is important to analyse the spoken and written
characteristics of discourse (we will do this in later lessons).
To sum up, examines spoken communication (talk/speech/spoken
texts/spoken messages) between speaker(s) and listener(s) and written
communication (texts/messages) between reader(s) and writer(s). It stresses the
need to see language as a dynamic, social interactive phenomenon. Meaning is
conveyed not by single sentences but by more complex exchanges, in which the
participants beliefs and expectations, the knowledge they share about each other
and about the world, and the situation in which they interact, play a crucial part.

Discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies, is a general term for a number

of approaches to analyze written, vocal, or sign language use or any
significant semiotic event.
The objects of discourse analysisdiscourse, writing, conversation,
communicative eventare variously defined in terms of coherent sequences
of sentences, propositions, speech, or turns-at-talk. Contrary to much of traditional
linguistics, discourse analysts not only study language use 'beyond the sentence
boundary', but also prefer to analyze 'naturally occurring' language use, and not
invented examples. Text linguistics is related. The essential difference between
discourse analysis and text linguistics is that it aims at revealing socio-
psychological characteristics of a person/persons rather than text structure.
Discourse analysis has been taken up in a variety of social
science disciplines, including linguistics, education, sociology, anthropology,
social work, cognitive psychology, social psychology, area studies, cultural
studies, international relations, human geography, communication studies,
and translation studies, each of which is subject to its own assumptions,
dimensions of analysis, and methodologies.
 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.

To truly understand what Discourse Analysis is, it is important to

first understand what discourse is. There are three ways in which we can
describe discourse; each of which are of equal importance:
 Firstly, discourse can be described as language beyond the level of
the sentence. By this we mean that it is a type of language that extends
past features such as sounds (phonetics), structures (syntax) and the parts
that make up words (morphology).
The second description of discourse concerns language behaviours
linked to a social practice; this suggests that a discourse is a type of
language. For example, the most popular discourse you may have heard
of is the discourse of law, whereby legal documents are written in as
much depth as possible to avoid any vagueness and ambiguity. This style
of writing is unique to the legal profession, meaning it is a specific kind
of discourse.
Finally, discourse is described as being a system of thought. This is
by far the most scientific description of the three, as it disagrees with the
notion that knowledge and truth are either universal or objective.
Conversely, it suggests that the ideas about knowledge and truth emerge
from particular social and historical situations. An example would be the
process of contemporary science and its attempts to produce objective
knowledge. The concept of objectivity is itself socially constructed; it's
subjective. This means that 'natural' categories are actually produced by
human categorisation, such as the differences between humans and
animals; all humans are animals, but not all animals are humans.
However, this is purely because humans have decided it has to be like
this. Discourses appear to produce 'natural' knowledge, but they're
actually shaped by powerful institutions (such as capitalism and
heterosexuality). Michel Foucault offered a further insight into the idea
of discourse as a system of thought (see video on the Who does
Discourse Analysis? page).