The notion of discourse is involved in several analysis field.

Therefore, we can use discours le in

two different ways. At first, as a “ non comptable ” substantif and also as a comptable substantif.
Or to a very broad textuals ensemble. So, discourse act like something that refers as on empirical
object and also that transcend any particular way of communication. In other words, “ Discourse
” will also be use in two different way : on philosophical theories and also on the empirical way
of how does a text function. In contrast to linguists who oppose themselves in a traditional way
to the updating in terms of context of the linguistic system, “ Discourse ” is consider as the use of
language. In addition, there are people who associate “ Discourse ” with communication, the
language that goes beyond word. A set of group of word so that communication should be
fulfilled. In linguistics especially, “ Discourse ” has three majors oppositions which are :
Discourse and sentence, Discourse and language and finally Discourse and text. When Discourse
and sentence are opposed, it lays the emphasis on linguistic unit. Called in French : “ unité
transphrastique ” which are sequences of sentences. Some thinkers like Z.S. Harris had been able
to talk about “ Discours analysis ”. It’s also on that interpretation of “ Discourse ” that modern
researchers working in the cognitive domains are interested in the way an utterance is interpreted
basing on posterior and anterior utterances. Otherwise, “ Discourse ” is use in other different
manners. And this is not the common one.
The contrast between discourse and language can be see in various ways but, it opposed the
whole language set as a system, a contextual use usage of its system. Its link to the course of
general linguistic course of F. De Saussure. The notion of “ language is use ”, the mostly use in
english de literature is paraphrase of two oppositions mentioned below.
The discourse is sometimes defined as follow : as a particular linguistic unit that goes beyond
sentence and a focusing on the use of language.
A part from linguistic, “ Discourse ” is associated to severals sciences of language. And so
interacted with some theoretical stream of ideas that cross the majority of human and social
science. As stream of ideas, we can quotes the philosophy of ordinary language of ( L.
Wittgenstein ), the theory of the act of language of ( J.L. Austin ) the school of Paolo Alto, the
dialogism of M. Bakhtine, the Psychology of L. Vygotsky, the archeology of the therory of
power of M. Foucault and so on and so forth…
The notion of discourse is also involved in some constructivists, especially sociology of the
knowledge. Therefore, Discourse is an open set of leitmotifs, in other words the principale idea
in terms of reasoning, “ Discourse ”, is not always designed to be a set of sentence that overtop
sentence. But gather some other structures of a new order than those of the sentence. It’s the case
of a proverb or a prohibition like “ no smoking ” are Discourse. If they are part of an independent
unit, even if they, are constitute of a unique sentence.
“ Discourse ”, consider as a set of succession of sentence can sometimes be submitted to some
rules organizations. On the other hand, rules that govern the type of discourse ongoing in a
determined social groupe. And on the other hand, the rules cross to genres that govern a narrative
a dialogue, on expiation etc.

In this part, we can see that talking is not only a representation of the world but rather a kind of
action upon somebody. In that way linguistic and rhetorics traditions are linked and stress on the
power of “ word ”. That led to the development in the years nineteen of the problematic of the
acte of the language, called also acte of word or act of discourse that is designed to modify a
certain situation at a higher level this elementary facts are at the same level. So, Discourse can be
inserted among socially recognized activities and facilitate the relation with the non verbales.
Here, the interactive nature of discourse is discussing, emphasizing that it is not merely a one-
way transmission of information but an exchange involving multiple participants. It argues that
even in seemingly non-interactive forms of speech, like lectures or written texts, there is an
inherent interactivity, as the speaker anticipates and adapts to the potential response of an
audience. The text challenges the simplistic notion of a passive "recipient" in communication,
suggesting instead terms like "interactants" or "co-speakers" to better reflect the dynamic,
reciprocal nature of discourse. The passage highlights that conversation is just one prominent
form of this interactivity. We can also add that discourse is always contextualized; meaning
cannot be assigned to a statement outside its context. It introduces the concept of "indexicality,"
where words like "I," "you," or "yesterday" are semantically incomplete and only gain meaning
when used in a specific context. The passage emphasizes that words are inherently incomplete
and must be tied to a particular linguistic exchange to have a "complete" meaning, though this
doesn't guarantee a clear or fixed interpretation. Also , discourse is only meaningful when it is
linked to a subject, a "self" ( I ), who establishes personal, temporal, and spatial references (I -
HERE - NOW) and indicates their attitude towards what is said and the recipient. The subject
takes responsibility for their words, as in a simple statement like "It’s raining," where the speaker
claims it as true. However, the speaker can also modify their level of commitment, shift
responsibility, or use irony. Ultimately, while the speaker takes responsibility for their words,
discourse is shaped by the communication context, not solely by the speaker's individual
authority. Then, discourse is governed by norms, just like any social behavior. Every language
act follows specific rules; for example, asking a question implies that the speaker doesn’t know
the answer, finds it important, and believes the person being asked can provide it. There are also
broader conversational norms (e.g., being clear, avoiding repetition, providing relevant
information). Furthermore, different types of discourse have their own sets of norms, creating
expectations for those involved. Ultimately, any speech act must justify its existence and position
within the conversation, a process of legitimizing the discourse as it unfolds.
The idea that a speech or discourse only makes sense when it's part of a much larger context,
called "interdiscourse." To understand even a small statement, we have to relate it to many other
texts, even if we don't always realize it. For example, when you categorize a text (like a news
report or a lecture), you are already comparing it to other texts of the same type. Political
statements, for instance, can’t be fully understood without knowing the competing opinions and
earlier discussions. Some theories, especially those inspired by scholars like Mikhail Bakhtin,
argue that every statement is part of an ongoing "dialogue" with other ideas, and it’s always
connected to past and future discourses. This view challenges the idea that a text or speaker is
completely isolated or original. Instead, each speaker is influenced by the language and
meanings shared by society. The key idea is that the speaker is not the sole creator of meaning –
they are part of a larger conversation that shapes what they say.
So, here, we can see how the concept of "discourse" is socially constructed and carries different
meanings depending on the context in which it's used. The key idea is that meaning is not fixed
or inherent in a statement but is continuously created and recreated within social practices. It
highlights how different researchers or schools of thought might emphasize certain aspects of
discourse while leaving others in the background. Even though the term "discourse" is unstable
and can vary in meaning, it plays a critical role in differentiating between different approaches to
understanding language and communication.
For example, in psychology, a "discourse analysis" approach focuses on the active role of
language in daily life, rejecting views that emphasize only individual mental states. The term
"discourse" is used both to describe specific forms of communication (like the language of the
press or doctors) and to indicate the researcher’s perspective on that communication. In literary
studies, considering literature as discourse challenges traditional divisions between studying the
text itself versus its context.
The passage also advises against two extremes when using the term "discourse": being overly
skeptical by reducing its usage to the interests of those who use it, or being overly strict in
requiring precise definitions. Instead, the author argues that it's natural for concepts like
"discourse" to evolve across various fields and be understood differently, just as terms like
"structure" did in the 1960s across disciplines.
Finally, the theory and analysis of discourse are explored, emphasizing how it intertwines
language, communication, and knowledge. It contrasts discourse analysis with other disciplines,
such as sociology, linguistics, and psychology, which focus on one of these aspects. The author
refers to Foucault’s perspective that discourse is not a simple intersection of words and things
but a complex practice that shapes the very objects it discusses. This analysis challenges the
traditional view of discourse as a system of signs representing reality and instead sees it as a
practice that actively forms the objects it talks about.
The role of philosophers in discourse analysis, highlighting how the field, much like philosophy,
operates in a space outside of conventional disciplines. The "theory of discourse," influenced by
post-structuralism, feminist theory, and Marxism, critiques Western paradigms, especially those
around subjectivity, power, and social structures. Figures like Foucault, Butler, and Spivak are
mentioned as key influences.
I’m we can then distinguishes in the extract, the difference between two types of discourse
analysts: those who use discourse analysis as a tool within other disciplines like sociology or
history, and those who are more focused on understanding the social function of discourse itself.
The former group tends to use discourse as a means of accessing social realities, while the latter
group studies how discourse constructs social order, often with a deeper focus on linguistic
structures. The passage concludes by noting the ongoing tension between these approaches,
particularly in relation to methods like content analysis, which are critiqued for oversimplifying
the relationship between language and meaning.

The passage discusses several key concepts about discourse and its characteristics.

Discourse as interactive: Discourse is inherently interactive, engaging multiple participants who

coordinate their statements and respond to each other. Even when there seems to be no direct
interaction, such as with a speaker or written texts, discourse remains part of an interactional
process where the speaker positions themselves in relation to their audience.
Discourse as contextualized: Discourse cannot be understood outside its context; the meaning of
an utterance is dependent on its situational context. This is known as indexicality, where certain
words only acquire full meaning when linked to a specific context of communication.
Discourse as attributed to a subject: Every discourse is linked to a subject (a "speaker" or "I")
who is responsible for what is said and for its truthfulness, even if the speaker's stance is
modulated or ironic. This attribution shapes the meaning and responsibility within the
communication process.
Discourse governed by norms: Discourse is regulated by norms, which govern how people
communicate and interpret utterances. These include conversational maxims and the broader
expectations associated with different genres of discourse.
Discourse within an interdiscourse: Discourse only makes sense within a broader
interdiscourse—a network of other discourses that it refers to and interacts with. This includes
prior, concurrent, or competing discourses, and it’s influenced by external meanings, as
articulated by scholars like Bakhtin, Lacan, and Althusser.
Discourse as socially constructed meaning: Meaning is not inherent or stable in discourse; it is
constantly built and reshaped through social practices. The construction of meaning occurs
within specific social frameworks and is influenced by various societal, political, or
psychological factors.
Theory and analysis of discourse: Discourse analysis involves studying how language,
communication, and knowledge are intertwined. Unlike other disciplines focusing solely on
language, communication, or psychology, discourse analysis looks at the interrelation of these
aspects to understand social and historical phenomena.
In conclusion, the text highlights that discourse is dynamic, context-dependent, and
socially constructed, with norms and frameworks shaping its meaning across different
communicative practices.