CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
The one characteristic that unites all humans and genetically distinguishes us from other living

forms is our capacity for language. Similar to constructing a nest or a hive, language is a

universal and uniquely human activity. It is something we do automatically, compulsively, and

as a community. Without it, we would cease to be human; our minds would perish just like bees

that are exterminated from their colony (Algeo, 1987). God has given us a special gift called

language that sets us apart from other animals. Even though these other species use sounds to

communicate, their communication is unquestionably distinct from human language and cannot

be classified as language. Consequently, communication can occur between people, animals, and

even Modes: between humans and animals, whereas language is human specific.Language is

simply man’s instrument of expression through sound. It is an instrument of thought, that is, a

psycho-social interactive measure, which binds human society together in communities and

linguistics group.

According to Sapir, 2009, language is purely human and non-instinctive method of

communicating ideas, emotions and desires by means of voluntarily produced symbols. The use

of language in communication is called Discourse. The word “Discourse” originates from the

Latin word “discursus” which denotes ‘conversation or speech’. It is the actual instances of

communication in the medium of language. Barbara Johnstone (2) defines discourse as an

institutionalized way of speaking that determines not only what we say and how we say it, but

also what we do not say which can be inferred from what we say. It follows that Discourse

Analysis is also concerned with language use in social contexts, as interaction or dialogue

1
between speakers. One major approach to doing Discourse Analysis is Critical Discourse

Analysis

Discourse can simply be seen as language in use (Brown & Yule 1983; Cook 1989). It therefore

follows that discourse analysis is the analysis of language in use. By ‘language in use’, we mean

the set of norms, preferences and expectations which relate language to context. Discourse

analysis can also be seen as the organization of language above the sentence level. The term

‘text’ is, sometimes, used in place of ‘discourse’. The concern of discourse analysis is not

restricted to the study of formal properties of language; it also takes into consideration what

language is used for in social and cultural contexts. Discourse analysis, therefore, studies the

relationship between language (written, spoken – conversation, institutionalized forms of talk)

and the contexts in which it is used. What matters is that the text is felt to be coherent.

Guy Cook (1989:6-7) describes discourse as language in use or language used to communicate

something felt to be coherent which may, or may not correspond to a correct sentence or series of

correct sentences. Discourse analysis, therefore, according to him, is the search for what gives

discourse coherence. He posits that discourse does not have to be grammatically correct, can be

anything from a grunt or simple expletive, through short conversations and scribbled notes, a

novel or a lengthy legal case. What matters is not its conformity to rules, but the fact that it

communicates and is recognized by its receivers as coherent. Similarly, Stubbs (1983:1)

perceives discourse analysis as ‘a conglomeration of attempts to study the organization of

language and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational exchanges or

written text.’Again, we affirm that what matters in the study of discourse, whether as language in

use or as language beyond the clause, is that language is organized in a coherent manner such

that it communicates something to its receivers.

2
Discourse analysis evolved from works in different disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s,

including linguistics, semiotics, anthropology, psychology and sociology. Some of the scholars

and the works that either gave birth to, or helped in the development of discourse analysis

include the following: J.L. Austin whose How to Do Things with Words (1962) introduced the

popular social theory, speech-act theory. Dell Hymes (1964) provided a sociological perspective

with the study of speech. John Searle (1969) developed and improved on the work of Austin. The

linguistic philosopher, M.A.K. Halliday greatly influenced the linguistic properties of discourses

(e.g. Halliday 1961), and in the 1970s he provided sufficient framework for the consideration of

the functional approach to language (e.g. Halliday 1973). H.P. Grice (1975) and Halliday (1978)

were also influential in the study of language as social action reflected in the formulation of

conversational maxims and the emergence of social semiotics. The work of Sinclair and

Coulthard (1975) also developed a model for the description of teacher-pupil talk between

animals and humans, yet language is unique to humans.

Language is only the means by which humans express themselves auditorily. It is a cognitive

tool, or a psycho-social interaction measure, that connects language communities and human

society as a whole. Language is a wholly human and non-instinctive technique of transmitting

ideas, emotions, and wants through intentionally created symbols, according to Sapir (2009).

Discourse refers to the use of language in communication. The Latin word "discursus," which

meaning "conversation or speech," is where the word "discourse" first appeared. It is the real-

world occurrences of language-based communication. Discourse, according to Barbara

Johnstone (2), is an institutionalized mode of speech that dictates not just what we say and how

we say it, but also what we Never say anything that could be interpreted from what we say. As a

result, discourse analysis also addresses how speakers interact or converse while using language

3
in social settings. Critical Discourse Analysis is a prominent method for conducting discourse

analysis.

To put it simply, discourse is the application of language (Brown & Yule 1983; Cook 1989).

Consequently, discourse analysis is the study of language in use. The collection of conventions,

inclinations, and expectations that link language to context is what we refer to as "language in

use." The arrangement of words at a level higher than sentences is another way to think of

discourse analysis. Occasionally, the word "text" is used instead of "discourse." Discourse

analysis is not just concerned with the examination of formal Sayings that can be interpreted

from our words should be avoided. It follows that language use in social circumstances, such as

speaker engagement or dialogue, is likewise a focus of discourse analysis. A popular method for

conducting discourse analysis is called Critical Discourse Analysis.

You can think of discourse as just language in use (Brown & Yule 1983; Cook 1989). Therefore,

the examination of language in use is what discourse analysis is. "Language in use" refers to the

collection of conventions, inclinations, and expectations that link language to context. The

arrangement of language above the sentence level is another way to conceptualize discourse

analysis. Sometimes the word "discourse" is substituted with the word "text." Discourse analysis

is concerned with more than just the analysis of formal. A requiem for the gods is a cultural

enactment of political intrigues typica of many African Nations in search of social, economic and

political triumph. Drawing on tradition African conception of the tenuous gaps among the worlds

of the living, the dead and the gods, the drama enacted the ergiously corrupted turn of affairs in

our socio-political and economic lives; Ogbiru typifies post-colonial African leaders with his

underhand antics and shenanigans including trying, albeit unsuccessfully to outwit the terrestrial

4
beings; and also the ease with which he could co-opt ready accomplices for his sleazy endeavour

could not co-opt but be apt character portraitures of those unconscionably misgoverning leaders.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Several researches have been conducted on various forms of discourse analysis. The aim of this

research is to essentially see what features in terms of lexical and grammatical cohesive devices

that are prominent in academic texts (Stevenson, 2004; Mancini, 2007). However, it is generally

known that academic text vary depending on the nature of the discipline be it biological

medicine, education and other fields. Generally, it has been observed that discourse analysis is

skewed in favour of texts that are of social need like journalism, like language of law, etc.

However, very little generally has been done on the nature of drama text with a view to finding

the peculiarities of their lexical and grammatical cohesive devices (Onwuegbuzie and Frels,

2014). This project aims at looking at the details of such relationships in dramatic text with a

view to finding how they defer significantly from the text of other disciplines.

1.3 Aim and Objectives of the study

The aim of the study is to carry out discourse analysis of the dramatic text “A requiem of the
gods”.
The specific objectives of the study are;
To identify the thematic structure of the dramatic text “A requiem of the gods”.
To determine the thematic progression of the dramatic text “A requiem of the gods”.
To assess the level of cohesion of the dramatic text “A requiem of the gods”.
To identify the coherence of the dramatic text “A requiem of the gods”.
1.4 Significance of the study
The study is significant as it will help to reveal the motivation behind the author’s writing of the

dramatic text “A requiem of the gods”. It will unearth the intention of the author as to why

5
dramatic texts are written. Also, the study will help to unravel the underlying social and

linguistic connotations in the requeim for the gods. The study is useful for studying the written

meaning of the text a requeim for the gods as it will consider he social and linguistic contexts.

The outcome of the discourse analysis is imperative because knowledge is extremely significant

in dramatic literatures and communications.

1.5 Scope of the study

This study is specifically designed to undertake a discourse analysis of dramatic text titled "a

requeim for the gods". The discourse analysis is delimited to the complete chapters of the drama

text.

1.6 Theoretical Framework

Theoretical Framework comprises a theory that vividly explains the subject matter of a research

and gives illumination to the approach that is adopted in the given study. The theory that is

adopted in this study is the textuality theory'. According to Popova, Rudneva and Dolzhich

(2010), the textuality theory'proposes a systematic approach for the study of the nature of text

and the methods for analysis of written discourse. The textuality theory suggests that the best

way to understand a text is to analyse the various elements that make up the structure of the text.

It suggests for text to be considered texts, there are certain peculiar features that they must have

and it is through analysis of the text that it can be determined if they possess these features.

Beagrande (1981) argued that the theory of textuality is one of the most famous theories of

discourse analysis and engenders the description of the general properties of the text within a

given analysis. Textuality is therefore a set of those inherent elements in the text being analyzed.

6
From this point of view, the key features for analysing a given text are;

1. Cohesion

2. Coherence

3. Intentionality

4. Acceptance

5. Intextuality

6. Situationality and

7. Informativeness

The foregoing properties are considered to be pivotal in laying the basis for the analysis of the

text and determination of it's meaning. Every text must be in a communicative event that meets

the seven criteria of textuality. Thus, in a complex information structure of the text systemic,

cognitive, communicative and situational pragmatic components overlap and display multilateral

and multi-valued links; text-the reality of the text, text-the author, text-the recipient, text-

hypertext. Text is a semiotic, linguistic, communicative, cultural and cognitive event. In modern

science, the text in most cases is considered as a particular aspect of a broader phenomenom-

discourse and is studied within discursive analysis. Thus the text should now be considered

alongside with the next unit of communication heilierachy-discourse. The text is not opposed to

the discourse, but co-exist with it. For a linguist, this means strengthening the analysis of the

object l, removing it in meta-perspective in the new coordinate system. Therefore in carrying out

7
a discourse analysis of the drama text, the all or some criteria of textuality must be met by the

text.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEWS

2.1 Discourse analysis

The Latin word "discursus," which meaning "conversation" or "speech," is where the word

"discourse" originates. (Iferstrom, 2016; Fraser, 2021; Fairclough, 2020) However, the idea of

discourse has expanded to include a more comprehensive understanding of language usage and

communication in modern academic and linguistic contexts. It encompasses all forms of

communication that help create meaning and comprehension in a particular environment, not

only one-on-one talks or speeches. Social conventions, cultural values, historical influences,

power dynamics, and particular communication objectives are some of the factors that shape

discourses. They can be written or spoken, professional or casual, and they are vital in

influencing our perceptions of and comprehension of the world around us (Wang, 2021).

Political discourses, for instance, create stories about policies, beliefs, and leadership, whereas

scientific discourses help the scientific community develop common understandings

(Widdowson, 2008; Wodak and Meyer, 2001).

Discourse, in its simplest form, is the means by which language functions in particular situations

to transmit ideas, form meanings, and help create social realities (Hewings, 2001; Moshinsky,

1959a; Richard J. Watts, 2003; Singh and Richards, 2006). The way we engage and

communicate in our daily lives is shaped by a complex interaction of social dynamics, cultural

influences, and language aspects (Tan and Marissa, 2022; Tenbrink, 2020).In an effort to account

for the use of language in many disciplines of study, students in the linguistic and literary

8
domains frequently exchange language and discourse. Within this section, we Provide a thorough

introduction to discourse, discourse analysis, allied areas, and study methodologies in order to

introduce students to conceptual clarifications in the discourse field. Discourse permeates all

academic disciplines and is not limited to the study conducted at the Department of English and

Linguistics alone. Language is being used. There are many different discourse forms that can be

studied as long as language is utilized by individuals in diverse social contexts. Discourse

analyzers therefore have a larger range of topics to examine in order to employ linguistic and

theoretical methods to account for how language is used. Discourse analysis has been used since

discourse has been investigated as a language unit above sentence and focuses on language use

in social context to carry out social functions. is an examination of the language unit utilized in

the sentence above to carry out social functions in a social setting. The fundamental tenet of

discourse analysis is expressed as follows by Brown and Yule (1983: 1): "The analysis of

discourse is inevitably the analysis of language in use." Because of this, it cannot be limited to

describing linguistic forms without taking into account the roles or objectives these forms are

intended to play in human affairs.

Discourse analysts are interested in language use in social context, or what people actually use

language for, rather than just its formal characteristics. Their areas of interest are various social

situations in which conversations take place, particularly how those contexts are organized and

the procedures by which meaning is encoded and decoded. The center spontaneously occurring

dialogue, which can be recorded conversations or utterances, is the analyst's focus in the field of

discourse. "It is the scientific study of naturally occurring (i.e. spontaneous) conversation (or

what is meant to be rendered in written mode) which exists between at least two participants in a

social context," states Onadeko (2000: 83), providing a unique perspective on discourse from the

9
linguistic perspective. Discourse analysis, in his opinion, includes all spoken and unspoken acts

that occur during a social conversation. Schiffrin (1994: 42) provides an intriguing explanation

as well, stating that discourse studies show the connection of language function and structure in

use. According to her, functional definition concentrates on context, whereas structural definition

concentrates on text.

Language can serve a variety of purposes in social contexts, most notably interactive

conversational interaction. Six purposes of language are suggested by Jakobson (1960), which

Hymes (1962) concurs with. After observing these functions, Stubbs (1995: 46) expands on the

work of Jakobson and Hymes by proposing his own theories about the functions of language,

which include those that are directive or conative, poetic, expressive or emotive, metalinguistic,

referential, and contextual roles. Additionally, Halliday (1970: 140–1655) identified three

general roles that language ought to fulfill: ideational, interpersonal, and textual roles. Language

can carry out these tasks in a variety of discourse genres. Texts can come from a variety of

discourse genres, including family (how family members interact), classroom (how teachers and

students interact), hospital (how doctors and patients interact), market (how sellers and buyers

interact), political (how political actors discuss political issues), religious (how priests and

congregation interact), and legal (how judges and accused or attorneys and clients discuss legal

matters). The role that language plays in any of these domains of human activity can be placed

within any of the functions listed. above, or perhaps a discourse can carry out some of these tasks

when examined.

Discourse analysis is the study of a unit of language above sentence used in a social context to

accomplish social functions since discourse has been investigated as a unit of language above

sentence and focuses on language use in social context to perform social functions. The
10
fundamental tenet of discourse analysis is expressed as follows by Brown and Yule (1983: 1):

"The analysis of discourse is inevitably the analysis of language in use." Because of this, it

cannot be limited to describing linguistic forms without taking into account the roles or

objectives these forms are intended to play in human affairs. Discourse analysts are interested in

studying language usage in social context, or the purpose of language, as opposed to its formal

characteristics. Their areas of interest are various social situations in which conversations take

place, particularly how those contexts are organized and the procedures by which meaning is

encoded and decoded. In the subject of discourse analysis, the analyst's primary focus is on

organically occurring conversation, which can include recorded conversations or utterances. "It

is the scientific study of naturally occurring (i.e. spontaneous) conversation (or what is meant to

be rendered in written mode) which exists between at least two participants in a social context,"

states Onadeko (2000: 83), providing a unique perspective on discourse from the linguistic

perspective.

The phrase discourse analysis was first used by academic Zellig Harris in 1952 as a technique for

analysis of linked speech or writing to demonstrate the relationship between culture and

language and to carry out descriptive linguistic analysis beyond a single sentence. In order to

demonstrate the pattern of combination of word classes in a text, he used the distributional

technique to find elements that can co-occur in the same environment (Malmkjaer and Anderson

1991: 100). On the other hand, he used this technique to find patterns of morphemes, which

should be able to distinguish a text from a collection of sentences (Onadeko 2000: 84). Because

he just used the structuralist technique, which was unable to examine the semantic significance

of the language under analysis, he was unable to fully convey the idea. In his discussions of the

field and the mode, Harris introduced an idea that Halliday (1961, 1967, and 1970) builds upon.

11
and the conversation's tone. The first to attempt to provide a structural study of naturally

occurring discourse in classroom dialogue were Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). They look at the

relationships between impromptu conversation components in order. The foundation laid by

Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) allowed Sinclair and Coulthard to succeed in discourse

analysis. Numerous academics have written multiple books on the idea.

2.1.1 The Characteristics of Discourse Analysis

Several distinctive characteristics define discourse analysis as a qualitative research methodology

that directs its methodical investigation of language and communication in social contexts

(Badarneh, 2020; Barton and Tusting, 2005; Cook, 2011; Fairclough, 2020; Moon and Murphy,

1999). According to Bondarouk and Rüel (2004), Case and Science (2018), and Thomas A.

Sebeok, General Editor (2010), these qualities offer a basis for comprehending the richness and

depth that discourse analysis offers to the investigation of underlying social, cultural, and power

dynamics present in linguistic expressions:Discourse analysis is a potent technique for

examining the intricacies of representation and communication because of a number of important

features.

1. Sensitivity to Context: Discourse analysis is sensitive to language usage context by nature. It

recognizes that interpretations are created within particular cultural, historical, highlights the

significance of looking at the larger context in which communication occurs in social and

cultural contexts (González-Fernández, 2022; Griffiths and Cansiz, 2015).

2. Constructive Language: According to Price (1998), this method sees language as an active,

constructive process that both shapes and is shaped by human experiences. Discourse analysts

12
understand that language actively creates and reflects social realities, identities, and ideologies in

addition to serving as a means of information transmission.

3. Power and Ideology: The identification of power relations and ideologies ingrained in

language is a fundamental component of discourse analysis (Hashemian and Farhang-Ju, 2022;

Mair and Fairclough, 1997; Wiggins, 2019). Scholars investigate how language reveals

prevailing discourses, reveals latent biases, and challenges established power systems.

4. Interpretive Approach: The nature of discourse analysis is interpretive. Scholars participate

inDigby et al. (2010) describe an ongoing process of interpretation aimed at revealing more

profound levels of meaning by investigating how linguistic decisions produce subtle expressions

and insights that go beyond the obvious.

5. Variety of Data Sources: It covers a broad spectrum of data sources, such as spoken

dialogues, written texts, visual media, and more. Due to this variety, scholars have the

opportunity to investigate how language functions in many contexts (Ayuningsih et al., 2020;

Dadze-Arthur, 2012; Nash, n.d.; O'Cathain, 2019; Reaves, 2023; Simmons and Hawkins, 2014).

6. Micro-Level Analysis: Discourse analysis looks closely at language details, not just the

words themselves. Researchers pay close attention to pauses, metaphors, intonations, and other

minute details that add to the message's overall meaning (Jwa, 2020; Kayzouri et al., 2020; Mair

and Fairclough, 1997;2019; Wooffitt, 2011; Tseng et al.

7. Subjectivity and Identity: The method focuses on how language shapes and negotiates both

individual and societal identities. The study examines the role that language plays in the

development and manifestation of many identities, such as gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic

class (D'Cruz, 2008; García Ochoa et al., 2016; Moshinsky, 2022; Roman and Roman, 2014).
13
8. Representation's Power: Discourse analysis emphasizes the significance of language in

representation. By accentuating some features and marginalizing others, language forms public

opinion, produces social realities, and affects perceptions. (Apsari et al., 2022; Fairclough, 2020;

Gollobin, 2020; Truan and Oldani, 2021).

9. Flexibility: Scholars possess the ability to modify discourse analysis to suit diverse research

inquiries and environments. This flexibility makes it possible to use the methodology in a variety

of sectors. and subjects (Hidayat et al., 2021; Shabat et al., 2021; Zhai, 2021; L. K. Allen et al.,

2019). Discourse analysts recognize their own subjectivity and place in the research process

through critical reflexivity. They consider their function, prejudices, and possible effects on how

data is interpreted and analyzed critically (Kumaravadivelu, 1999; Moss, 2006; Rogers et al.,

2016; Wang, 2021).

10. Multidisciplinary Nature: According to Van Dijk (2016), discourse analysis has

applications in linguistics, sociology, anthropology, media studies, and other disciplines,

spanning disciplinary boundaries.

11. Understanding Communication Practices: This area of study aims to comprehend spoken

interactions such as turn-taking, pauses, and interruptions, in addition to the content of

communication (R. H. Jones et al., 2015; Price, 1998).

12. Multiplicity of Meanings: The recognition via discourse analysis Modes: Discourse analysis

recognizes that a single utterance or text can carry multiple layers of meaning. Researchers

explore how different interpretations emerge based on the context and perspectives of

participants (Clerke and Hopwood, 2014; Kumaravadivelu, 1999).

14
13. Social Construction of Reality: It aligns with the idea that language contributes to the

construction of reality. Discourse analysts study how language creates shared understandings and

contributes to the framing of social events and phenomena (Gollobin, 2020; Molzahn et al.,

2020; Sara rachel Chant et al., 2014; Sarah J. Tracy, 2020; Strongman, 2013).

14. Language as Action: Discourse analysis treats language as a form of social action. It

investigates how language doesn't just convey information but can also perform actions, such as

making requests, offering opinions, or asserting power (Fişekcioğlu, 2022; Sharma and Sievers,

2022, 2022).

15. Global and Local Perspectives: Discourse analysis can examine both macro-level

discourses, such as political rhetoric, and micro-level interactions, like everyday conversations.

This duality allows researchers to grasp how language operates at different scales (Lillis and

Curry, 2013; N. X. Liu et al., 2021; Munalim, 2020; Wang, 2021).

16. Shifts and Transformations: Discourse analysis is attentive to shifts and transformations in

language use over time. Researchers may trace changes in discourse patterns to understand how

social, political, or cultural contexts evolve (Fairclough, 2013; McCarthy, 1992).

17. Qualitative and Inductive: The approach is inherently qualitative, focusing on

understanding the depth and nuances of language rather than quantifiable measurements. It

follows an inductive reasoning process, allowing insights to emerge from the data (Barkhuizen,

2019; Maxwell and Reybold, 2015; Miles et al., n.d.; Sarah J. Tracy, 2020).

18. Dialogical Nature: Discourse analysis recognizes the dialogical nature of communication. It

investigates how interactions between participants shape the meanings that emerge, leading to

15
the co-construction of understanding (Fairclough, 2013; Goodyear et al., 2014; Higgs et al.,

2011).

19. Critical Examination: While not limited to critical perspectives, discourse analysis often

engages with critical theory to examine power dynamics, social inequalities, and dominant

ideologies that influence language use (Carter Andrews et al., 2019; Hernández, 2022; Margolis,

2007; Smith, 2021).

20. Emphasis on the Unsaid: Discourse analysis is not only concerned with what is said but

also with what is left unsaid. Researchers explore silences, omissions, and gaps in

communication that may carry significant meaning (Mair and Fairclough, 1997; Rogers et al.,

2016; Wang, 2021).

21. Integration of Theory and Data: Researchers often integrate theoretical frameworks into

their analysis to guide their exploration of specific discursive patterns or phenomena, providing a

structured lens through which to view the data (Kayi-aydar, 2015; Levitt, 2020; Usanova and

Schnoor, 2021). Incorporating these additional characteristics alongside the previously

mentioned ones deepens our understanding of the comprehensive and multifaceted nature of

discourse analysis. It underscores the approach's ability to illuminate the intricate connections

between language, society, and cognition, enriching our grasp of human communication and its

far-reaching implications

Discourse analysis acknowledges that a single text or statement can have more than one level of

meaning. Scholars investigate the emergence of diverse interpretations contingent upon the

contextual factors and participant viewpoints (Clerke and Hopwood, 2014; Kumaravadivelu,

1999).

16
2.1.2 Various forms of discourse analysis
A wide range of methods or approaches are included in discourse analysis; these provide a

distinct perspective for analyzing language, communication, and how these interact with larger

social dynamics (Fairclough, 2020; Gollobin, 2020; Li, 2009; Putra et al., 2021; Rahardi, 2022;

Siddiq et al., 2021; Van Bergen and Hogeweg, 2021). Specific techniques and foci are offered by

these kinds of discourse analysis to address various research questions and contexts:

1. Analysis of Critical Discourse (CDA): The power relationships, ideologies, and social

injustices ingrained in language are examined in depth by this kind of analysis (Nasution et al.,

2021; Van Dijk, 1993; Widdowson, 2008). The goal of CDA is to expose the ways that language

may uphold or subvert prevailing narratives and hierarchies of power. It frequently focuses on

exposing prejudices, covert intentions, and the ways in which Social hierarchies are maintained

in part through language.

2. Feminist Discourse Analysis: This method examines how language creates and maintains

gender roles, stereotypes, and power disparities. It is centered on gender and sexuality (Criado et

al., 2016; McIntyre, 2008; Wooffitt, 2011). It looks at how language can either support or

contradict patriarchal norms and how gender identities are mediated through communication.

3. Conversation Analysis: Focusing on oral exchanges, conversation analysis studies how

conversations are put together and structured (Fairclough, 2020; Steensig, 2004). It investigates

turn-taking, pauses, interruptions, and other conversational aspects to learn how people work

together to create meaning in real-time encounters.

17
4. Narrative Discourse Analysis: This method, which focuses on storytelling, looks at the

stories people tell themselves to make sense of the world around them. It investigates the topics,

structure, and discursive techniques used in storytelling to to demonstrate the process by which

people write and share their individual and group narratives (R. Jones, 2012; R. H. Jones et al.,

2015; Moshinsky, 1959b; Saracho, 2020; Sindoni, 2019).

5. societal Discourse Analysis: This approach focuses on larger societal discourses that

influence how we see particular subjects. It explores how language is used to create certain

narratives and sway public opinion in the media, public discourse, and institutional contexts

(Arvaja and Sarja, 2020; Badarneh, 2020; Galloway et al., 2020; Khodke et al., 2021; Rahardi,

2022).

6. Discourse Analysis in Multiple Modes: Multimodal analysis goes beyond spoken or written

language to incorporate visual, aural, and textual components. It looks at how diverse

communication modalities work together to convey meaning in a variety of settings, including

commercials, movies, and internet platforms.Knowledge and and Directions, 2019; Marefat and

Marzban, 2014; Smith, 2021; Kay I O'Halloran, 2020).

7. Ethnographic Discourse Analysis: This method, which has its roots in ethnography, looks at

language in the context of culture. To comprehend how language is used to negotiate identity,

social norms, and power dynamics, researchers immerse themselves in a community or context

(Mokoginta and Arafah, 2022; Tang et al., 2021; Wang, 2021).

8. Historical Discourse Analysis: This type looks at how language both forms and is shaped by

cultural, political, and social changes throughout time. It focuses on historical texts. To shed light

18
on historical developments, it tracks shifts in ideologies and discursive patterns (Y. Liu et al.,

2022; Moshinsky, 2022; Vittorio Tantucci, 2021; Waring, 2018).

9. Comparative Discourse Analysis: This method looks for commonalities across discourses in

various contexts, languages, or cultures. , contrasts, and underlying ideas. It draws attention to

the ways in which language is influenced by different cultural or contextual factors (Esau, 2021;

Mair and Fairclough, 1997; McCarthy, 1992).

10. Poststructuralist Discourse Analysis: This kind, which is in line with poststructuralist

theory, focuses on the ways in which language shapes identities and knowledge. It investigates

how language undermines established interpretations and demonstrates how flexible language is

in influencing reality (Rogers et al., 2016; Thurlow and Mroczek, 2012; Wang, 2021).

11. Mediated Discourse Analysis: This method, which focuses on media and communication

technologies, looks at language use on online platforms, social media, and digital places. It

explores the ways in which these platforms affect communication practices and public debate

(Fairclough, 2020; Moshinsky, 1959a; Salomaa and Lehtinen, 2018).

12. Cognitive Discourse Analysis: This kind aims to comprehend how words represent It molds

mental images, reasoning techniques, and cognitive processes such as thought patterns. It looks

at how language use reflects fundamental cognitive structures (Reaves, 2023; Roman and

Roman, 2014; McCarthy, 1992).

13. Institutional Discourse Analysis: This method examines language use in particular

institutional contexts, with a focus on institutions like education, healthcare, or the legal system.

It investigates the ways in which language both perpetuates and reflects power relations,

19
institutional practices, and professional identities (Fairclough, 2020; Guo and Ren, 2022; Hamid

et al., 2021; Kanno, 2021; Rogers et al., 2016; Salama et al., 2022).

14. Rhetorical Discourse Analysis: This kind, which has its roots in rhetoric, looks at the

persuasive language that is employed to sway listeners. It looks at persuasive techniques,

rhetorical devices, and the ways language creates arguments and appeals (Christison and Murray,

Roman & Roman, 2014; 2023).

13. Institutional Discourse Analysis: This method examines language use in particular

institutional contexts, with a focus on institutions like education, healthcare, or the legal system.

It investigates the ways in which language both perpetuates and reflects power relations,

institutional practices, and professional identities (Fairclough, 2020; Guo and Ren, 2022; Hamid

et al., 2021; Kanno, 2021; Rogers et al., 2016; Salama et al., 2022).

14. Analysis of Rhetorical Discourse: This kind, which has its roots in rhetoric, looks at the

persuasive language that is used to persuade people. It investigates how language creates

arguments and appeals, rhetorical devices, and persuasive techniques (Christison and Murray,

2021; Hart, 2008; Moshinsky, 2022; Murodi et al., 2021; Wang, 2021; Wooffitt, 2011; Xiong

and Qian, 2012).

2.2 Discourse Analysis of Drama

Many discourse analysis investigations begin with the fundamental assumptions about the nature

of speech interaction in general and the communicative qualities of language in particular. action

in specific. The Romanian Explanatory Dictionary (2012) defines interaction as: mutual impact,

reciprocal conditioning between facts, events, etc.; reciprocal action (of objects or phenomena).

Characters engage with one another in the dramatic opera through dialogue, which serves to

20
transmit and convey ideas. The characters' relationship is facilitated by the communication,

which always occurs in a physical and cognitive environment that allows for message

transmission and reception.Regarding this, D. Schiffrin notes that every contact takes place in a

context in his work Discourse Markers (1987). Three characteristics that are applicable to any

encounter can be used to categorize the concept of context:- the physical context is the setting in

which the contact occurs, such as at home, the office, in an open area. Speaking takes place most

often in face-to-face interactions where the speaker and the listener are in the same physical

space.The social and personal relationships between individuals or characters that interact are

referred to as the personal context. The social and institutional functions of speakers and

listeners, group membership, and participants' relevant relative standing and social distance are

all included in the personal context.- The participants' shared knowledge and the environment

they are a part of make up the cognitive context of the encounter. The cognitive environment

also draws upon the speaker's prior experiences, cultural background, and worldview, all of

which are likely to change as the encounter goes on.The significance of context in instruction is

emphasized by Claire Kramsch in Context and Culture in Language Teaching (1993). Food for

thought... If communicative activities are not only to meet the needs of social maintenance, but

potentially to bring about social and educational change, then we have to search for ways of

explicitly varying the parameters of the interactional context," is what the diversity and richness

of interactive activities in meaningful contexts offer.*1Speech organization can be described in a

variety of ways, but every explanation must acknowledge the significance of context in discourse

analysis. One strategy is to concentrate on the discourse's organization, specifically its linear

structure and the connections between its various parts.

21
An explanation of the formation of the components of verbal exchanges, the answers, is the goal

of a structural analysis. To illustrate, how the for social of the social of societal regarding social

related to social of community Another approach would be to study discourse in terms of

strategy, focusing on how speakers employ various interactive tactics at specific points in the

discursive sequence. For example, we have three types of discourse with the same structure: l.-

Open the window. (The other person opens the window) 2.-Will you open the window, please?

(The other person opens the window) 3.-It's so hot in here! (The other person opens the

window)2 (P. Simpson, 1997) In all three verbal exchanges we deal with a requirement followed

by a reaction, but the discourse strategy is different from a direct addressing, a requirement to

open be satisfied (order), example 1, to a less explicit need that is primarily courteous, example

2, and indirectly, example 3. The three types of speech are identified by imperative sentences

that follow grammar rules and by punctuation that follows spelling rules. As the message's

issuer, the speakers employ a variety of discourse strategies, including formal and informal

language depending on the situation. These strategies are part of what Dell Plymes refers to as

communicative competence, which is the ability to express oneself appropriately in a given

setting. ..

2.2.1 An analysis of the theatrical work A Requiem for the gods

Dramatic language is modelled on real-life conversations among people, and yet, when one

watches a play, one also has to consider the differences between real talk and drama talk.

Dramatic language is ultimately always constructed or ‘made up’ and it often serves several

purposes. On the level of the story-world of a play, language can of course assume all the

pragmatic functions that can be found in real-life conversations, too: e.g., to ensure mutual

understanding and to convey information, to persuade or influence someone, to relate one’s

22
experiences or signal emotions, etc. However, dramatic language is often rhetorical and poetic,

i.e., it uses language in ways which differ from standard usage in order to draw attention to its

artistic nature (see Language in Literature). When analysing dramatic texts, one ought to have a

closer look at the various forms of utterance available for drama.

Also, In drama, in contrast to narrative, characters typically talk to one another and the entire

plot is carried by and conveyed through their verbal interactions. Language in drama can

generally be presented either as monologue or dialogue. A requiem for the gods is a cultural

enactment of political intrigues typica of many African Nations in search of social, economic and

political triumph. Drawing on tradition African conception of the tenuous gaps among the worlds

of the living, the dead and the gods, the drama enacted the ergiously corrupted turn of affairs in

our socio-political and economic lives; Ogbiru typifies post-colonial African leaders with his

underhand antics and shenanigans including trying, albeit unsuccessfully to outwit the terrestrial

beings; and also the ease with which he could co-opt ready accomplices for his sleazy endeavour

could not co-opt but be apt character portraitures of those unconscionably misgoverning leaders.

2.2.2 Dramatic Criticism

The term "dramatic criticism" describes an established set of guidelines for assessing dramatic

works. Drama criticism cannot be approached from a single angle. There are many different

approaches to criticism, which is a formal discourse. These techniques are not all-inclusive, but

they do reflect the most popular methods in use today. A biological critic, for example, would

frequently employ psychological ideas to examine a dramatist, whereas a historical critic may

employ formalistic tools to analyze a drama. It follows that any logical critical approach to

drama is legitimate as long as it is applied with the proper humility and objectivity.

23
All things considered, theater critique is not merely a cerebral diversion. It is a typical reaction of

humans to drama. The methodology of conversation, and that is all that literary criticism is. It

results from the act of reading.

The dramatic critic is interested in the writer's intended meaning and the degree to which it has

been successfully communicated. For example, a Marxist critic is more interested in the ideas

that a dramatist is attempting to convey, but a formalist critic is more concerned with the way in

which a dramatist presents a concept. To some extent, in order to truly evaluate a play, a critic

for theater needs to be knowledgeable with the history of theater. He has to be anchored in

theatrical theory and mindful of what others have stated. Noteworthy is the fact that drama

reviewers have appropriated from other academic fields including anthropology, psychology,

linguistics, and philosophy to examine theater more critically.

2.2.2.1 Dramatic criticism types

1. Formalist Evaluation
Russia's introduction of formalism dates back to 1915, when the Moscow Linguistic Circle was

established, and 1916 saw the formation of Opayaz, its counterpart in St. Petersburg. Victor

Shklovsky, Roman Jakobson, Boris Eikhenbaum, Osip Brik, Yury Tynyanav, and Vadimir Propp

are some of the key figures in this critical school. The unsystematic and eclectic critical

techniques that had previously dominated literary study were rejected by formalism in its early

iterations as a critical stance. The goal was to establish a "literary science" by focusing on the

analysis of poetic language.

Another name for formalism is the "Theory of art for art sake." According to formalist theory,

literature is a distinct a distinct type of human knowledge that requires independent analysis. It

24
maintains that literature ought to claim its independence from politics and ethics. Rene Wellek

and Austin Warren assert that "the natural and sensible starting point for work in literary

scholarship is the interpretation and analysis of the works of literature themselves" in their

seminal work Theory of Literature (1973).

2. Critique of Structuralism
Kelly Grifith (2002) claims that New Criticism had taken over as the main theoretical framework

guiding instruction and interpretation by the 1950s and 60s. Scholarly publications were flooded

with fresh critical interpretations of literature. College students enrolled in basic literature classes

were expected to understand the elements of drama, poetry, and fiction and to analyze the

consequences of these elements. publications included in compilations. However, at the height of

this domination, structuralism—which had been around in Europe since the 1930s but had not

yet been translated into English—was found by a new wave of graduate students and educators.

Although structuralism was fundamentally opposed to different Criticism and took teaching and

interpreting literature in a whole different path, it did share some of its approaches, most notably

a focus on attentive reading and attention to the particularities of the text.

3. Critique of Post-Structuralism
According to Kelly Griffith (2002), Saussure's ideas of language gave rise to post-structuralism.

It turned out to be the most significant and enlightening use of structuralism in literary analysis.

It acknowledges Saussure's theory of language and applies his methods to investigate in literary

works' language, but it focuses on the connection between language and meaning. In actuality,

post-structuralism provides a radical philosophy of reading that completely rejects meaning

certainty. Jacques Derrida is a French post-structuralist critic who is the most influential.

4. Critical Deconstructionism
25
As a literary theory, deconstruction challenges the conventional wisdom that holds that language

is a reliable source of reality. Deconstructionists contend that because language is inherently

unstable, dramatic compositions composed entirely of words lack a singular, definitive meaning.

Paul de Man claims that deconstructionists maintain that it is impossible to make the actual

expression and the signified correspond with what has to be stated or made to match the actual

signals. Because they feel that theater cannot sufficiently and Although undoubtedly convey its

subject matter, deconstructionists frequently focus more on the way language is employed in a

book than on the words themselves. Formalism and deconstructionist criticism are similar in that

they both typically need close reading. According to Lois Tyson (2006), deconstruction has a lot

to offer us as a theoretical idea. It may strengthen our capacity for critical thought and make it

easier for us to see the ways in which ideologies that are ingrained in our language but of which

we are unconscious shape our reality. Nevertheless, we must first comprehend deconstruction's

perspective on language in order to comprehend how it exposes the covert operation of ideology

in our day-to-day perception of ourselves and our environment since, according to Derrida,

language is a fluid, ambiguous realm of complex experience where ideologies exist without us

being aware of them, rather than the trustworthy instrument of communication we think it is.

26
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEAERCH METHODS

3.1 Research Methodology

The research methodology of this study is the qualitative research methodology. This implies

that this study primarily dealt with qualitative data. Qualitative data research involves collecting

and analysing non-numerical data such as text, voice messages or recordings, videos among

others, to understand concepts, opinions or experiences. It can be used to gather in-depth insights

into a problem or generate new ideas for research.

3.2 Research Design

This reteach is built on discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is used to identify patterns in the

use of language during communications. To conduct content analysis, you systematically collect

data from a set of texts, which can be written, oral or visual (kinesis): text books, newspapers and

magazines, speeches and interviews, web content and social medial posts, photographs and films,

etc.

3.3 Method of Data analysis

Since the subject of analysis is a dramatic text, the method of data analysis is rhetorical and

poetic, i.e., it uses language in ways which differ from standard usage in order to draw attention

to its artistic nature (see Language in Literature). When analysing dramatic texts, one ought to

27
have a closer look at the various forms of utterance available for drama. The analysis will

identify the elements that are thematized such as Stylistics of the text, Lexis, Grammar, Figures

of Speech, Cohesion and Content. The book a requiem for the gods will be used and the

discourse will oversee the entire chapters.

CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS
4.0 Introduction
The focus of the study is to carry out a discourse analysis of dramatic text. The study aims to

identify the thematic structure of dramatic test, determine the thematic progression of the

dramatic text. Assess the level of cohesion; identify the coherence, the lexis, figures of speech.

As had been estsblished in this study, the dramatic texts are aimed at sharing knowledge to

people about the drama a requiem for the gods. In this dramatic text "A requiem for the gods is

used for this analysis.

STYLISTIC OF THE PLAY

The playwright employed along of stylistic devices to drive down the message. These are the

uses of figurative languages, figures of speech, lexis, grammar, cohesion and contexts. All these

are seen under the following headings.

4.1 LEXIS
Omoko used alot of formal and informal words which are accurately placed. Certain characaters

in the play exhibited formality. In the conversation between Ogbiru and Ugbomosho there was a

demonstration of adequate service to the gods by Ugbomosho and sang a song to the gods

'Ughwu Kenora yo she

28
 Omo r'omughwu kpan uyovwin
Ko ghwe!
4.2 GRAMMAR
There's balance in the use of different aspects of sentences like simple, complex and compounds

sentences. Hardly one crosses any scene in the play without any of these aspects of sentences

being represented. The uses of tenses are also accurate. There are uses of semantic words e.g

Oja, oja, oja Ughwu doboji Oja Oja Oja.

4.3 FIGURES OF SPEECH

In this play there are appropriate uses of figures of speech like the proverb in the conversation

between Okoloko, Tumult and Uzen where Okoloko gave a proverb

" Igboloja yo igboloja

"Igboloja yo igoloja
A mortal dare to wrestle with the ancestors
Igboloja yo igboloja
The blind man boasts he has seen the moon
Igboloja yo igboloja
Igboloja yo igboloja
Also Ogbiru ironically expresses himself in proverb
"Ogba rue ughere re - ogba
Erivwin avwan je o she - ogba
A warrior has entered the arena - warrior
Spirits behold a dance - warriors
A warrior has entered the arena - warrior
Spirits, what a spectacle - warrior

29
4.4 COHESION AND CONTEXT
There is cohesion according to the context of the play. The grammatical lexis and phonological

items shown are in interconnected references.

4.5 AN EXPOSITION OF THE INDICES OF THE DRAMA TEXT

The issue interrogated in the play derive from a rather frustrating inclinations that African lands

with all of its abundance of humans and natural resources, could be so held to ransom by a group

of an uncouth political sadist while the rest of the populace watch from the fence, in Draven

dolicity.It is a dramatization of the pains of a dramatist on a spiritual journey through a faulty

path splits between a collective uncertain and self-rejuvebation; a mixture of desr for the future

of the land and a conviction that it is not possible for the entire populace to make a communal

vow, in a remote setting. In time past, to be so denied the positive dreams that have advanced the

cause of the rest of the world. It is a belive that has been shaped by personal conviction that the

metaphysical, often belaboured by the over religious Africans, sometimes require the people to

act rather than tolerate the impunity of their wayward rulers.

The artistic choice is simple- however pitiful the people's situation might be, their mass hysteria

and complete embrace of their state may have sent revulsion into the inner recesses of the

supernatural, who see them as curious sets of human breed that should not only be dreaded but

avoided like a yaw infested child in the hands of an incorrigible maid. The play is, therefore, a

cultural enactment of political intrigues typical of many African nations in search of social,
30
economic and political triumph..It should be seen as a dramatization of the authors inner grief

concerning the various shades of power play in Nigeria and indeed, Africa in periods of

uncertainties.

4.5 FLUENCY
There is free flow of semantics and syntactic forms in the play. Actions moved chronologically,

one invent leading to the other. Tumulo complaining about the bribery they've involved

themselves and the ailing land and Ogbiru attacking him instantly and Egben agreeing with

Ogbiru saying about himself securing a future for him and his children before he joins his

ancestors.

4.6 INTELLIGIBILITY
All the interactions in the made meaning to the characaters involved. This could be traced to the

way a particular utterances receives its reply.

4.7 APPROPRIATENESS
Most of the words and lines used in this play are appropriate while following few examples are

not. We noticed Ogbiru's entrance into the palace in his splendor and all chiefs behind present as

he walks in a dignified pace to his royal stool as he gestures his chiefs to sit as he spreads

majestically on his royal stool.

4.8 THE PRAGMATIC ESSENCE OF THE TEXT

Pragmatic studies information structures with essential on language performance. Uwajeh (2006)

opines that pragmatic to preoccupied with the study of all facets and manifestation of language

performance. Yule (1996) sees pragmatics as influenced speaker meaning. In line with the

31
foregoing this part of the study takes into account such notion as the intentions of the speaker.

The implications of their speeches, the effects of an utterance on listeners, the implications that

follow from expressing something in a certain way and the knowledge, belief and

presuppositions about the world upon which the speaker and listeners rely when they interact.

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The development of the oral communication ability, the speech skill, having as support the

dramatic text is backed up by the dialogic nature of this type of text, which, preserving the

features of daily dialogue, motivates the students’ participation in class activities. The dramatic

text can always be exploited in various educational activities, relating to the acquisition of

vocabulary, proper use of intonation, grammar teaching problems, etc. however, all these, in a

meaningful context allowing comprehension and promotingactive participation of students.

Removing stage directions in a dramatic fragment, creating situations out of a dialogue, using a

common theme of some fragments from different dramatic texts, using a sequence of images in

relation to text, etc. are all activities that can develop reading and speaking skills,

comprehension, require creativity and innovation but also the proper use of language in

communication, listening skill, but especially the understanding of the importance of intonation

and fluency in the transmission and reception of message. differs considerably When one deals

with dramatic texts one has to bear in mind that drama differs considerably from poetry or

narrative in that it is usually written for the purpose of being performed on stage. Although plays

exist which were mainly written for a reading audience, dramatic texts are generally meant to be

32
transformed into another mode of presentation or medium: the theatre. For this reason, dramatic

texts even look different compared to poetic or narrative texts. One distinguishes between the

primary text, i.e., the main body of the play spoken by the characters, and secondary texts, i.e.,

all the texts ‘surrounding’ or accompanying the main text: title, dramatis personae, scene

descriptions, stage directions for acting and speaking, etc. Depending on whether one reads a

play or watches it on stage, one has different kinds of access to dramatic texts. As a reader, one

receives first-hand written information (if it is mentioned in the secondary text) on what the

characters look like, how they act and react in certain situations, how they speak, what sort of

setting forms the background to a scene, etc. However, one also has to make a cognitive effort to

imagine all these features and interpret them for oneself. Stage performances, on the other hand,

are more or less ready-made instantiations of all these details. In other words: at the theatre one

is presented with a version of the play which has already been interpreted by the director, actors,

costume designers, make-up artists and all the other members of theatre staff, who bring the play

to life.

This paper on the discourse analysis of the dramatic text a requiem of the gods has gone deep

into the subject matter by first throwing much light on what the concept discourse anal analysis

is all about. One of such points goes beyond words which is basically spoken. It could be written

and its a product of language in use. The essence of this paper is to bridge the gap between

literary theory and pragmatism, since there is a current notion that drama is an independent

literary genre with certain particular characteristics and therefore should be analyzed as such. In

the analysis of discourse, attention should be made to the social, cultural and other contextual

imperatives that informs its use and its interpretation. The playwright of this book under study

employed alot of stylistic devices like formal and informal words at appropriate places to drive

33
down the message. The story in the play displays greed and wickedness by traditional leaders

portray inorder to get and secure wealth. In the characater sketches the righter used both flat and

round characters to suit several actions in the play. All in all, this study will serve as the basis for

other future investigation into Discourse analysis.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analysis of the dramatic text, the following recommendations were made;

1. Authors should more often than not utilize stylistic devices to help them drive down their

message

2. Similarly, the use of hyponomy is also recommended for writers to enhance conceptual clarity

3. Also, the enhance coherence between different sentences, it was recommended that synonym

should be elaborately used in texts.

4. Lastly, authors should use antonyms to enhance comprehension of words and concepts.

34
 REFERENCES

Abrams, M.H. (1953). An Essay on Criticism, London: Gerald Duckworth and Co. Ltd.

Agar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York:

William Marrow. Anglin, J. M. (1977). Word, object, and conceptual development. New

York: Norton.

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Balogun, Jide. ‘Approach to Modern Literary Theories’: www.

Unilorin.edu.ng/publication/balogun/Doc 5.pdf. Accessed May 15th, 2013.

Barsalou, L. W. (1987). “The instability of graded structure in concepts.” In U. Neisser (ed.),

Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in

categorization. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 101–40.

Carbaugh, D. (1996). Situating selves: The communication of social identities in American

scenes. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and

practical guide. New York: Routledge.

35
Chafe, W. L. (1979). “The flow of thought and the flow of language.” In T. Givon (ed.), Syntax

and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 159-81.

Childs, Peter & Fowler, Roger (2006). The Routledge Dictionary of Literary Terms. Routledge:

USA.

Clark, A. (1989). Microcognition: Philosophy, cognitive science, and parallel distributed

processing. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Clark, A. (1993). Associative engines:

Connectionism, concepts, and representational change. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, Mass.:

MIT Press. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Collins, J. C. and Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visonary companies. New

York: Harper Business.

Culler, Jonathan. (1997). Literary Theory: Avery short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.

Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds) (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive

phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage. Edwards, J. A. and

Lampert, M. D. (ed.) (1993). Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research.

Frye, N. (1957). Anatomy of Criticism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Gee, J. P. (1991). “A linguistic approach to narrative.” Journal of Narrative and Life History

1(1): 15–39. Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice.

36
 New York: Bergin & Garvey. Gee, J. P. (1993). “Critical literacy/socially perceptive

literacy: A study of language in action.” Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 16:

333–55

Hawkes, Terence. (1977). Structuralism and Semiotics. Berkeley: U California P.

Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum. Elman, J. L., Bates, E., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi,

D., and Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on

development. Cambridge, Mass.:

Hymes, D. (1996). Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality: Toward an understanding of

voice. London: Taylor & Francis. John-Steiner, V., Panofsky, C. P., and Smith, L. W. (eds)

(1994). Sociocultural approaches to language and literacy: An interactionist perspective.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kanter, R. M. (1995). World class: Thriving locally in the global economy. New York: Simon

and Schuster. Kaplan, R. D. (1998). An empire wilderness: Travels into America’s future.

New York: Random House.

Keil, F. (1979). Semantic and conceptual development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press.

Keil, F. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Knorr Cetina, K. (1992). “The Couch, the cathedral, and the laboratory: On the relationship

between experiment and laboratory, in science.” In A. Pickering (ed.), Science as practice

and culture, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992, pp. 113–37.

Kochman, T. (1981). Black and white styles in conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kress, G. (1985). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. Kress, G. (1996). Before writing: Rethinking paths into literacy. London: Routledge.

37
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London:

Routledge. Labov, W. (1972a). “The logic of nonstandard English.” In Language in the

inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvannia Press, pp. 201–40.

Macdonnell, D. (1986). Theories of discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. Malone, M. J. (1997). Worlds

of talk: The presentation of self in everyday conversation. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Margolis. H. (1987). Patterns, thinking, and cognition: A theory of judgment. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press. Margolis, H. (1993). Paradigms and barriers: How habits of

mind govern scientific beliefs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McCabe and C. Peterson (eds), Developing narrative structure. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum, pp. 1–25. Gee, J. P. (1990b). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in

Discourses. London:

Michaels, S. (1981). “‘Sharing time:’ Children’s narrative styles and differential access to

literacy.” Language in Society, 10(4): 423–42. Michaels, S. and Collins, J. (1984). “Oral

discourse styles: Classroom interaction and the acquisition of literacy.” In D. Tannen (ed.),

Coherence in spoken and written discourse.

Minksy, M. (1985). The society of mind. New York: Simon & Schuster. Mishler, E. G. (1986).

Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press.

Norwood, N. J.: Ablex, pp. 219–44. Middleton, D. (1997). “The social organization of

conversational remembering: Experience as individual and collective concerns.” Mind,

Culture, and Activity, 4(2): 71–85. Miller, C. R. (1984). “Genre as social action.”

Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2): 151– 67. Mills, S. (1997). Discourse. London:

Routledge.

38
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Star, S. L. (1989). Regions of the mind: Brain research and

the quest for scientific certainty. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Strauss, C. (1992). “What makes Tony run? Schemas as motives reconsidered.” In R. D’Andrade

and C. Strauss (eds), Human motives and cultural models. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, pp. 197–224. References 171

Strauss, C. and Quinn, N. (1997). A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing functional grammar.

London: Arnold.

Toolan, M. (1996). Total speech: An integrational linguistic approach to language. Durham:

Duke University Press.

Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Tyon, Lois. (2006). Critical Theory Today: A Friendly Guide. New York: Routledge.

van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Handbook of discourse analysis: Vol. 1: Disciplines of discourse. New

York: Academic Press.

van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) (1997a). Discourse as structure and process. Discourse studies 1: A

multidisciplinary introduction. London: Sage.

39