9067 Discourse Analysis

Book

Chapter 1: Introduction to Discourse Analysis

Introduction
This chapter introduces the concept of discourse analysis, defining discourse in different
ways and exploring its role in communication. It explains the search for meaning in discourse, how
discourse is interpreted, and how it constructs social reality. It also differentiates between spoken
and written discourse.
1. The Pursuit for Meaning
 Language is more than just communication; it helps express thoughts, emotions, and
social relationships.
 Discourse is central to intercultural and cross-cultural interactions, enabling societies
to function as a global community.
 Language is used not only to describe things but also to perform actions (e.g., making
promises, issuing commands).
2. Defining Discourse
 Two main approaches to defining discourse:
1. Discourse as Language Beyond the Sentence Level
 Examines how sentences are structured and connected to form coherent texts.
2. Discourse as Language in Use
 Focuses on how language functions in real-world contexts.
 Lupton (1992) defines discourse as a patterned way of thinking reflected in both textual
and verbal communication, embedded within wider social structures.
3. Interpreting Discourse
 Discourse interpretation is complex and requires:
o Knowledge of language use in social contexts.
o Understanding societal norms and shared knowledge.
o Awareness of hidden meanings and assumptions embedded in discourse.
  Example: If someone says, "It’s getting late," in a social gathering, they might be hinting
at leaving rather than merely stating the time.
4. Discourse and the Construction of Social Reality
 Discourse constructs reality rather than just reflecting it.
 Michel Foucault argued that discourse creates and defines social structures, shaping
how people perceive and talk about issues like gender, politics, and power.
 Critical discourse analysis (CDA) examines how language reinforces power structures
and social inequalities.
5. Spoken vs. Written Discourse
 Spoken Discourse:
o Interactive, context-dependent (relies on tone, gestures).
o Uses pauses, repetitions, and corrections.
o Example: Conversations, interviews.
 Written Discourse:
o More structured and planned.
o Relies on punctuation and grammar rather than non-verbal cues.
o Example: Essays, legal documents.
 Both types have unique features but often overlap in digital communication (e.g.,
texting, emails).

Chapter 2: Origin and Development of Discourse Analysis

Introduction
This chapter provides a historical overview of discourse analysis, tracing its origins and
interdisciplinary nature. It explains how discourse analysis evolved as a field, integrating concepts
from linguistics, sociology, anthropology, and philosophy. Key concepts such as discourse
structure, cultural communication patterns, intertextuality, and diversity in discourse
analysis are discussed.
1. Development of the Field
 Discourse analysis studies both written and spoken texts and how they are used in
different contexts.
 The field was established in the 1970s and has expanded into various academic
disciplines.
  Zellig Harris (1952) was one of the first scholars to use the term discourse analysis,
focusing on language beyond the sentence level.
 Harris emphasized that discourse is context-dependent and that utterance meaning
changes based on context.
2. Interdisciplinary Nature of Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis integrates perspectives from multiple fields:
 Linguistics: Focuses on grammar, syntax, and phonology.
 Sociology: Studies how discourse constructs social order (ethnomethodology).
 Anthropology: Examines how language transmits and reflects culture.
 Philosophy: Influences discourse analysis through speech act theory (Austin, Searle,
Grice).
 Media Studies: Explores how discourse shapes public opinion.
3. Discourse Structure of Texts
 Discourse structure refers to how texts are organized and how ideas flow.
 Linguists study sequential ordering in conversations and writing (e.g., what comes first
in a conversation).
 Mitchell (1957) introduced the notion of stages in discourse, identifying steps people
follow in interactions (e.g., buying and selling situations).
 Different languages and cultures organize discourse differently (e.g., Japanese
conversations often begin with a comment on the weather, while English conversations do
not).
4. Cultural Ways of Speaking and Writing
 Language use varies across cultures, and discourse analysis studies these differences.
 Intercultural pragmatics examines how people from different cultures use language
differently in conversations and writing.
 Example:
o English speakers prefer direct communication (“Close the door.”).
o Japanese speakers often use indirect forms (“It’s a little cold in here.” –
implying that the door should be closed).
5. Discourse and Performance
 Language is performative, meaning that saying something can also be an action (e.g.,
“I promise” is both a statement and an action).
  Cameron and Kulick (2003) argue that who we are is shaped by the way we speak, not
just the other way around.
 Example:
o People use different speaking styles depending on their audience (formal vs.
informal speech).
6. Discourse and Intertextuality
 Intertextuality refers to how texts are connected to other texts.
 Bazerman (2004) describes texts as existing in a “sea of former texts” – meaning that all
writing and speech are influenced by previous discourse.
 Example:
o News articles, political speeches, and advertisements often reference historical
events or popular culture to shape meaning.
7. Diversity in Discourse Analysis
 Discourse analysis has expanded into many academic fields, including gender studies,
media studies, psychology, and literary analysis.
 Researchers analyze discourse from a variety of sources:
o Conversations
o Newspaper articles
o Advertisements
o Political speeches
o Literary texts
 Critical discourse analysis (CDA) focuses on power and ideology in language (e.g.,
how media portrays gender and race).

Chapter 3: Discourse and Society

Introduction
This chapter explores the relationship between discourse and society, emphasizing how
language shapes and reflects social structures, ideologies, and cultural norms. It discusses the role
of discourse in shaping social interactions, the subjectivity of context, and the difference between
textual and social theoretical approaches in discourse analysis.
1. The Relationship between Discourse and Society
  Discourse is not just a reflection of society; it also constructs and sustains social reality.
 Teun van Dijk (2008) argues that discourse does not merely respond to social situations
but is actively defined by the participants in communication.
 Language users apply shared worldviews and assumptions to shape discourse during
interactions.
2. The Role of Context in Discourse
 Context is subjective and socially constructed, meaning different individuals may
interpret the same discourse differently.
 Example: The phrase "I have a test tomorrow" could be understood as an excuse to decline
an invitation, rather than a neutral statement.
 Van Dijk’s View: Context is not just the setting but how participants define the situation
in which discourse occurs.
3. Textual vs. Social Theoretical Approaches
 Norman Fairclough (2003) differentiates two key approaches:
1. Textually Oriented Discourse Analysis: Focuses on linguistic structures within
texts.
2. Social Theoretical Discourse Analysis: Examines social influences on discourse,
including power and ideology.
 Fairclough suggests that an effective discourse analysis should integrate both linguistic
and social dimensions.
4. The Foundations of Discourse Analysis
 Early influences include:
o J.L. Austin and John Searle: Explored how language is used to perform actions
(speech act theory).
o Structuralism and Semiotics: Studied how language functions as a system of signs
in different contexts.
 Modern approaches include:
o Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Fairclough, van Dijk, Wodak): Focuses on
language, power, and ideology.
o Conversation Analysis (Sacks, Schegloff): Investigates rules of spoken discourse.
o Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Explores how discourse operates in digital and
visual media.
5. Social Construction of Reality through Discourse
 Discourse constructs reality rather than merely describing it.
 Michel Foucault: Discourse is not just words but a system of knowledge that defines
reality (e.g., concepts like capitalism, globalization).
 Edward Said’s Orientalism: Demonstrates how discourse creates stereotypes (e.g.,
portraying the West as "rational" and the East as "irrational").
 Example: Media discourse can influence public perception of political figures, social
movements, or marginalized communities.
6. Discourse as a Tool for Power and Ideology
 Dominant discourses shape social structures and influence beliefs.
 Media, politics, and institutions use discourse to maintain power relations (e.g., political
speeches, legal language).
 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) studies how discourse:
o Reproduces power and social inequality.
o Challenges dominant ideologies.
o Constructs public opinion.

Chapter 4: Approaches to Discourse Analysis

Introduction
This chapter explores various approaches to discourse analysis, highlighting their
theoretical backgrounds, methodologies, and applications. It discusses how discourse analysis is
interdisciplinary, incorporating insights from linguistics, sociology, anthropology, and philosophy.
The chapter categorizes different analytical frameworks used to study discourse, emphasizing how
each approach provides unique insights into language, society, and communication.
1. Structuralist Approach to Discourse Analysis
 Based on linguistic structures and patterns in discourse.
 Focuses on how sentences and phrases are connected to form coherent discourse.
 Key Proponent: Ferdinand de Saussure (1916), who emphasized language as a
structured system of signs.
 Example: Analyzing grammatical structures to determine meaning in discourse.
2. Functionalist Approach to Discourse Analysis
  Focuses on how discourse functions in real-life situations.
 Analyzes how people use language to achieve specific communicative goals.
 Michael Halliday (1978) introduced Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), which
studies:
o Ideational function: How discourse represents events and experiences.
o Interpersonal function: How discourse expresses relationships and social roles.
o Textual function: How discourse is organized and structured.
 Example: Examining how a news article frames political events.
3. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
 Examines how language, power, and ideology interact in discourse.
 Key Scholars:
o Norman Fairclough (1989): Discourse as a social practice that maintains power
structures.
o Teun van Dijk (1993): Focuses on racism, sexism, and inequality in discourse.
o Ruth Wodak (1996): Developed historical approaches to discourse analysis.
 Example: Analyzing how media discourse reinforces stereotypes.
4. Conversation Analysis (CA)
 Focuses on naturally occurring conversations and spoken discourse.
 Developed by Harvey Sacks (1970s) to analyze social interactions.
 Examines:
o Turn-taking: How speakers take turns in conversation.
o Adjacency pairs: Predictable conversation sequences (e.g., question-answer).
o Repairs: How speakers correct mistakes or misunderstandings.
 Example: Analyzing how doctors and patients communicate during medical
consultations.
5. Ethnography of Communication
 Developed by Dell Hymes (1962), it examines:
o Cultural norms in discourse.
o Speech communities and communication patterns.
  Key Concept: SPEAKING model, which analyzes:
o Setting (context)
o Participants (speakers)
o Ends (purpose)
o Act sequence (structure)
o Key (tone/manner)
o Instrumentalities (medium)
o Norms (rules)
o Genre (type of discourse)
 Example: Studying how greetings vary across cultures.
6. Multimodal Discourse Analysis (MDA)
 Studies non-verbal communication, including:
o Gestures, images, sounds, and videos in discourse.
 Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen (2001): Developed Visual Grammar to analyze
images and text together.
 Example: Examining how advertisements use visuals to persuade audiences.
7. Discursive Psychology
 Examines how language constructs social identity and emotions.
 Key Idea: People use discourse to present themselves in different ways depending on
context.
 Example: Analyzing how people justify actions in interviews.

Chapter 5: Discourse and Pragmatics

Introduction
This chapter explores the interconnection between discourse analysis and pragmatics,
emphasizing how context, meaning, and social norms influence communication. It explains key
pragmatic concepts such as context, reference, inference, presuppositions, speech acts, politeness,
and the cooperative principle.
1. Context and Its Significance
 Context determines meaning in discourse.
  Two types of context:
1. Linguistic Context (Co-text): The surrounding words that influence meaning.
2. Situational Context: The social, cultural, and physical setting of communication.
 Example: The phrase "I’ll meet you there." depends on contextual knowledge to
understand where "there" is.
2. Reference: Referring Expressions and Referents
 Reference: Using language to point to entities in the real world.
 Types of Reference:
1. Endophora (within the text)
 Anaphora: Refers back (Ali bought a book. He liked it.).
 Cataphora: Refers ahead (If you need it, my book is on the table.).
2. Exophora (outside the text)
 Deixis: Uses words like this, that, here, there, now, then that require contextual
interpretation.
3. Inference and Shared Assumptions
 Inference: Using background knowledge to interpret meaning.
 Shared Knowledge Assumptions:
o Speakers assume that listeners already know certain information.
o Example: If a teacher says “Where is Newton?” in class, students infer that they
are referring to a classmate, not the scientist.
4. Presuppositions and Entailments
 Presupposition: Assumptions embedded in a statement.
o Example: "Have you stopped smoking?" presupposes that the person used to
smoke.
 Entailment: Logical conclusions derived from a statement.
o Example: "She will celebrate her son’s success next week." entails that she has a
son.
5. Speech Acts
 Introduced by J.L. Austin (1962), speech act theory states that language performs
actions.
  Types of Speech Acts:
1. Locutionary Act: Literal meaning ("It’s cold here." means the temperature is low).
2. Illocutionary Act: Intended meaning ("It’s cold here." could be a request to close
the window).
3. Perlocutionary Act: Effect on the listener (The listener closes the window).
 Direct vs. Indirect Speech Acts:
o "Close the door!" (Direct Command)
o "It’s getting late." (Indirect Request to leave).
6. Politeness and Face Theory
 Face: A person’s social self-image.
 Politeness Strategies (Brown & Levinson, 1987):
1. Positive Politeness: Builds closeness ("Let’s work together!").
2. Negative Politeness: Shows deference ("I’m sorry to bother you, but...").
 Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs): Actions that challenge a person’s face (e.g., criticism,
commands).
 Example: A subordinate may use more politeness when speaking to a boss.
7. Cooperative Principle (Grice’s Maxims)
 Paul Grice (1975) proposed that communication follows the cooperative principle:
o Quantity Maxim: Be as informative as necessary.
o Quality Maxim: Be truthful.
o Relevance Maxim: Stay on topic.
o Manner Maxim: Be clear and orderly.
 People sometimes violate maxims to create implied meaning (e.g., sarcasm, jokes).
 Example:
o "Did you like the movie?" → "Well, the popcorn was good." (Implying they didn’t
like the movie).

Chapter 6: Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

Introduction
 This chapter introduces Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), an influential approach to
studying the relationship between language, power, and ideology. It explains how discourse is used
to maintain, challenge, or resist power structures, highlighting the methodological strengths and
limitations of CDA.
1. Defining Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
 CDA is not a single theory but a broad research approach that examines how social
power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted and reproduced in discourse.
 Key Scholars:
o Teun van Dijk (2015): CDA studies how power is legitimated and resisted
through text and talk.
o Ruth Wodak (2006): CDA examines dominance, discrimination, and power
control in language.
o Norman Fairclough (1989): CDA focuses on how discourse maintains social
inequalities.
2. Discourse in CDA
 Discourse is both shaped by society and shapes society.
 Power is fluid and negotiated—those who seem powerless in one context may become
powerful in another.
 Institutionalized discourses (e.g., courtroom proceedings, police interrogations) tend to
be more rigid, making power asymmetries harder to challenge.
 Genres of discourse differ in their level of power symmetry or asymmetry, based on
their production, consumption, and target audience.
3. Methodological Strengths of CDA
 Interdisciplinary Nature: CDA integrates insights from linguistics, sociology, political
science, media studies, and psychology.
 Focus on Social Change: CDA seeks to expose hidden ideologies and bring attention to
marginalized voices.
 Analyzes Multiple Layers of Meaning: Examines both explicit and implicit power
structures within discourse.
Examples of CDA Applications:
o Media Discourse: Examining how newspapers frame political events or minority
groups.
 o Political Speeches: Studying how politicians use rhetoric to manipulate public
perception.
o Legal Language: Understanding how legal discourse reinforces institutional
authority.
4. Criticism of CDA
 Subjectivity and Bias: Researchers may cherry-pick data that supports their conclusions.
 Lack of Standardized Methods: Different CDA studies use different methodologies,
making comparisons difficult.
 Overemphasis on Language: CDA often ignores political and economic factors,
focusing too much on discourse alone.
 Ignores Language’s Role in Social Cohesion: While CDA critiques power imbalances,
it often overlooks how language unites societies.

Chapter 7: Discourse and Media

Introduction
This chapter explores the role of discourse in media, analyzing how media discourse shapes
public perception, ideology, and social reality. It discusses the linguistic and semiotic features of
media texts, including advertising, political discourse, and the influence of digital media on
communication.
1. The Role of Media in Discourse
 Media is a primary site for discourse production and consumption.
 It constructs social realities by shaping narratives and influencing opinions.
 Media discourse is multimodal, combining text, images, and sound to create meaning.
 The expansion of digital media has transformed how discourse is produced, distributed,
and interpreted.
2. Discourse of Advertising
 Advertising is a pervasive form of discourse designed to persuade consumers.
 Advertisers use rhetorical techniques, persuasive language, and emotional appeal.
 Key Linguistic Features in Advertising Discourse:
o Use of Hyperbole: “The best phone ever made!”
o Rhetorical Questions: “Are you ready for a change?”
 o Presuppositions: Implicit meanings that shape consumer perception (e.g., “Now with
even better taste” assumes the old version tasted good).
o Personalization: Direct address to the audience (“You deserve the best”).
 Advertising discourse not only informs but also manipulates consumer behavior,
reinforcing consumerism.
3. Political Discourse and Media
 Media plays a central role in shaping political discourse, influencing how people
perceive leaders, policies, and social issues.
 Political discourse employs rhetorical strategies, ideological framing, and emotional
appeals.
 Key Features of Political Discourse:
o Use of Persuasion: Politicians present themselves as the “savior” of the nation.
o Emotional and Ideological Appeals: Political speeches use nationalist, religious,
and cultural references to gain support.
o Intertextuality in Political Discourse: Political statements often reference historical
events or past speeches to strengthen arguments.
 Media Influence on Political Discourse:
o Framing: News outlets present political events with biases that favor certain
narratives.
o Use of Catchphrases and Slogans: Simple, repetitive messages influence public
opinion (e.g., “Make America Great Again”).
o Propaganda Techniques: Politicians use media to manipulate perceptions and
silence opposition.
4. Media Discourse and Public Opinion
 Media discourse shapes social consciousness by controlling what information is shared
and how it is framed.
 Example: News coverage can construct different realities of the same event, depending
on word choice and framing.
 Digital Media and Social Media Influence:
o Fake News & Misinformation: Digital platforms spread unverified information
faster than traditional media.
o Echo Chambers: Social media creates filter bubbles, reinforcing existing beliefs
without exposure to opposing viewpoints.
 o Hashtag Activism: Online movements (#MeToo, #BlackLivesMatter) demonstrate
how social media discourse influences real-world politics.

Chapter 8: Discourse Genres

Introduction
This chapter analyzes different discourse genres, exploring their structural, stylistic, and
discursive features. It examines how genres such as advertising, politics, law, and literature use
language differently, emphasizing how each genre constructs meaning and reflects power
dynamics.
1. Understanding Discourse Genres
 A discourse genre refers to a socially recognized form of communication (e.g., news
reports, legal documents, advertisements).
 Genres are not just structural but also contextual, meaning they function differently based
on audience, purpose, and medium.
 Example: A political speech is structured differently from a legal contract due to different
communicative goals.
2. Advertising Discourse
 Advertising is a persuasive discourse, using rhetorical strategies to influence consumer
behavior.
 Key Features of Advertising Discourse:
o Hyperbole: “The best coffee in the world!”
o Personalization: “You deserve luxury.”
o Rhetorical Questions: “Why wait? Buy now!”
o Visual and Verbal Coordination: Use of images, colors, and slogans to reinforce
messages.
 Advertising promotes consumerism, shaping how audiences perceive products and
brands.
3. Political Discourse
 Political discourse is designed to persuade, inform, and mobilize audiences.
 Key Features of Political Discourse:
o Framing: Presenting issues in a way that supports an agenda.
o Emotional Appeals: Using patriotism, fear, or hope to influence voters.
 o Repetition and Slogans: Simple phrases for mass appeal (“Yes We Can”).
o Opposition Construction: Defining the “other” (e.g., “us vs. them” narratives).
 Media plays a key role in shaping political discourse by determining what information is
amplified or ignored.
4. Legal Discourse
 Legal discourse is formal, precise, and structured to minimize ambiguity.
 Features of Legal Language:
o Complex Sentences: Long and detailed clauses to cover all interpretations.
o Passive Voice: “The contract shall be terminated” (removes personal accountability).
o Technical Jargon: Specialized terms (e.g., “habeas corpus”).
o Normative Statements: Sentences that express rules and obligations (e.g., “The
accused shall be punished”).
 Legal language constructs authority, ensuring consistency in law interpretation.
5. Literary Discourse
 Literary discourse uses language artistically to express emotions, themes, and
narratives.
 Features of Literary Language:
o Metaphors and Symbolism: Hidden meanings (e.g., Orwell’s “Animal Farm” as a
political allegory).
o Multiple Interpretations: Meaning depends on reader perception.
o Intertextuality: References to past literary works (e.g., Shakespearean influences in
modern poetry).
 Literary texts are open to analysis, with meanings shaped by cultural and historical
contexts.

Chapter 8: Discourse and Identity

Introduction
This chapter explores the relationship between discourse and identity, analyzing how
language shapes and reflects personal, social, and cultural identities. It discusses identity as a fluid
and socially constructed phenomenon, influenced by gender, race, class, and professional status.
1. The Role of Discourse in Identity Construction
  Identity is not fixed but is continuously shaped through discourse.
 People use language to construct, negotiate, and perform identities in social interactions.
 Judith Butler (1990) introduced the concept of performativity, suggesting that gender
identity is constructed through repeated linguistic and social behaviors.
 Example: A person might alter their speech style depending on whether they are speaking
to colleagues or friends.
2. Language and Social Identity
 Identity categories such as gender, ethnicity, nationality, and class are discursively
produced.
 Code-Switching and Identity:
o Bilingual speakers shift between languages to express different aspects of
identity (e.g., using a home language with family and a formal language at work).
 Discourse Communities:
o Groups with shared language practices (e.g., medical professionals, legal experts)
shape identity through specialized discourse.
3. Intersectionality in Identity Construction
 Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) introduced intersectionality, which examines how multiple
social categories (race, gender, class) interact in discourse.
 Example: A Black woman’s identity is shaped not only by race and gender but by how
these factors interact in different social contexts.
4. Digital Discourse and Online Identity
 Social media and digital platforms allow people to construct multiple identities.
 Online personas may differ from real-world identities due to the ability to curate and
manipulate discourse.
 Example: The way a person presents themselves on LinkedIn vs. Instagram reflects
different identity performances.