DISCOURSE ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
(Phép Phân tích Diễn ngôn)

Lecturer: Nguyen Thanh Binh

Contents
Chapter I. WHAT IS DISCOURSE ANALYSIS?

Chapter II. LINGUISTIC ELEMENTS IN DISCOURSE

Chapter III. CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

Chapter IV. DISCOURSE PROCESSING & DISCOURSE IN LANGUAGE

TEACHING

Chapter I. WHAT IS DISCOURSE ANALYSIS?

I. Introduction

II. A brief historical overview

III. Discourse versus text

IV. Spoken versus written language

Terms used:

Discourse: Diễn ngôn, ngôn bản

Discourse Analysis: phép phân tích diễn ngôn.

Text: văn bản

Text analysis: phép phân tích văn bản

1
I- Introduction

For a long time, as Cook (1989) observes, language teaching has been focused
considerably on sentences. However, even if we submit to this approach as a temporary
measure, that there is more using language, and communicating successfully with other
people, than being able to produce correct sentences. Not all sentences are interesting,
relevant, or suitable; one can not just put any sentence after another and hope that it will
mean something. People do not always speak-or write- in comlete sentences, yet they
still succeed in communicating. Knowing what is supposed to make a sentence correct,
and where that sentence ends, though it may be important and worth teaching and
learning, is clearly not enough. Nor is this only a question of difference between writing
and speech, as might at first appear.

Activity 1 (p.1):Read the following and answer the questions:

A-This box contains, on average, 100 Large Plain Paper Clips. ‘Applied Linguistics’ is
therefore not the same as ‘Linguistics’. The tea’s as hot as it could be. This is Willie
Worm. Just send 12 Guinness ‘cool token’ bottle tops.

B-Playback. Raymond Chandler. Penguin Books in association with Hamish Flamilton.

To Jean and Helga, without whom this book could never have been written. Over. The
voice on the telephone seemed to be sharp and peremptory, but I didn’t hear too well
what it said – partly because I was only half awake and partly because I was holding the
receiver upside down.

Questions:

1-Which of these two stretches of language is part of a unified whole?

Text A is part of a unified whole (Một tổng thể có tính thống nhất)

2- What sort of text is it?

Part of a story

3- What is the other one?

A number of sentences not unified (without unity)

2
4- How did you distinguish between them?

Text A has unity and meaningfull whereas text B does not have unity although each
sentence is meaningfull by itself.

The quality of being meaningful and unified is known as the quality of a text , that is
coherence. This is an essential quality for communication, but which can not be
explained by concentrating on the internal grammar of sentences.

Then as Cook (ibid) argues, there are two issues that language teachers have to tacle.
Firstly, paying too much attention to producing correct sentences is not enough to
communicate well. Secondly, while it is not the rules of the sentence grammar that helps
us to be meaningfull and to perceive meaning, then it is text grammar and discourse
analysis that need to be focused on

Since the subject of study is Discourse Analysis, let us look at a brief historical overview
of discourse analysis

II. A Brief Historical Overview of Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language
and the contexts in which it is used. It grew out of work in different disciplines in the
1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics (tín hiệu học), psychology,
anthropology (nhân chủng học), and sociology. Discourse analysts study language in
use: written texts of all kinds, and spoken data, from conversation to highly
institutionalised forms of talk.

1. Earliest Approaches (Các phương hướng nghiên cứu ban đầu)

At a time when linguistics was largely concerned with the analysis of single sentences,
Zeilig Harris published a paper with the title ‘Discourse Analysis’ (Harris 1952). Harris
was interested in the distribution of linguistic elements in extended texts, and the links
between the text and its social situation, though his paper is a far cry from the discourse
analysis we are used to nowadays. Also important in the early years was the emergence
of semiotics and the French structuralist approach to the study of narrative. In the 1960s,
Dell Hymes provided a sociological perspective with the study of speech in its social
setting (e.g. Hymes 1964). The linguistic philosophers such as Austin (1962), Searle
(1969) and Grice (1975) were also influential in the study of language as social action,
reflected in speech act theory and the formulation of conversational maxims, alongside

3
the emergence of pragmatics, which is the study of meaning in context (see Levinson
1983; Leech 1983).

2. British Discourse Analysis (Trường phái phân tích diễn ngôn Anh)

British discourse analysis was greatly influenced by M.A.K. Halliday’s functional

approach to language (e.g. Halliday 1973), which in turn has connection with the Prague
School of linguistics. Halliday’s framework emphasises the social functions of language
and the thematic and informational structure of speech and writing. Also important in
Britain were Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) at the University of Birmingham who
developed a model for the description of teacher-pupil talk, based on a hierarchy (hệ
thống tầng bậc )of discourse units. Other similar works: doctor-patient interaction (giao
tiế), service encounters, interviews, debates, business negotiations, as well as
monologues. Novel work in British tradition has been done on intonation in discourse.
The British work has principally followed structural-linguistic criteria, on the basis of the
isolation (sự phân lập) of units, and sets of rules defining well-formed sequences of
discourse.

3. American Discourse Analysis( Trường phái phân tích diễn ngôn Mỹ)

American Discourse Analysis has been dominated by work within the

ethnomethodological tradition (truyền thống phương pháp dân tộc học), which
emphasises close observation on groups of people communicating in natural settings. It
examines types of speech events such as stor telling, greeting rituals (nghi lễ chào hỏi),
verbal duels (tranh luận tay đôi) in different cultural and social settings (e.g. Gumperz
and Hymes 19720. What is often called conversation analysis within the American
tradition can also be included under the general heading of discourse analysis. In
conversational analysis the emphasis is not upon building structural models but on close
observation of the behaviour of participants in talk and on patterns which recur over a
wide range of natural data. The work of Goffman (1976, 1979), and Sacks, Schegloff and
Jefferson (1974) is important in the study of conversational norms, turn-taking, and other
aspects of spoken interaction. Alongside the conversational analysts, working together
within the sociolinguistic tradition, Labov’s investigations of oral storytelling have also
contributed to a long history of interest in narrative discourse.

The American work has produced a large number of descriptions of discourse types, as
well as insights (cái nhìn sâu sắc) into the social constraints of politeness and face-
preserving (giữ gìn thể diện) phenonmena in talk, overlapping with British work in
pragmatics.
4
4. Text grammarians:

Also relevant to the development of discourse analysis as a whole is the work of text
grammarians, working mostly with written language. Text grammarians see texts as
language elements strung together in relationships with one another that can be defined.
Linguists such as Van Dijik (1972), De Beaugrande (1980), Halliday and Hasan (1976)
have made a significant impact in this area. The Prague School of linguists, with their
interest in the structuring of information in discourse, has also been influential. Its most
important contribution has been to show the links between grammar and discourse.

Discourse analysis has grown up into a wide-ranging discipline which finds its unity in
the description of language above the sentence and an interest in the contexts and cultural
influences which affect language in use. It is also now forming a backdrop to research in
Applied linguistics, and second language learning and teaching.

III- Discourse versus Text

Read pp. 12-13 and answer the questions:

1-What features distinguish text and discourse?

2-How can a word make a complete text / piece of discourse?

1.Views from different linguists

1.1. Tankanen (2006, pp.3-5): Both terms text and discourse have been used in
linguistics. A brief consideration on the use of these terms seems to be in order,
especially since the distinction between the two is far from clear-cut.

Some researchers use only one of the terms, while those who use both terms may use
them almost interchangeably, or they may make a clear distinction between them.

What is more, definitions found in various studies for either of the terms may seem
perplexingly similar. Compare, for instance, “a text is a unit of language in use”
(Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p.1), and “the analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis
of language in use” (Brown & Yule, 1983,p.4).

1.2.According to Halliday & Hassan (1976, pp. 1-3), “the word text is used to refer to
any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole.”

5
A text may be spoken or written, prose or verse, dialogue or monologue. It may be
anything from a single proverb to a whole play, from a momentary cry for help to an all-
day discussion on a committee. A text is a unit of language in use. A text is not
something like a sentence, only bigger; it is something that differs from a sentence in
kind.

A text is best regarded as a semantic unit: a unit not of form but of meaning.

1.3. Functional approaches to language have emphasized the `multi-functionality' of

texts. Systemic Functional Linguistics, for instance, claims that texts simultaneously have
`ideational', `interpersonal' and `textual' functions.

That is, texts simultaneously represent aspects of the world (the physical world, the social
world, the mental world); enact social relations between participants in social events and
the attitudes, desires and values of participants; and coherently and cohesively connect
parts of texts together, and connect texts with their situational contexts (Halliday 1978,
1994).

When both text and discourse are used within a study, there is often a systematic
difference between the two. For instance, text has been used to refer to the theoretical
construct that underlies discourse (van Dijk 1977: 3). It has also been suggested that text
is the record of discourse (Brown & Yule,1983: 26; Lemke 1991).

1.4. To some researchers, the difference between the two terms lies in the mode: texts are
written and made up of sentences, whereas discourses are spoken and made up of
utterances (Coulthard, 1985, p.6).

1.5. A definition which has been widely used states that discourse includes text, or, more
specifically, that text means discourse without context, while discourse means text with
context (Hoey,1991, pp.212–213)

1.6. For some researchers discourse carries ideology: it is “a way of structuring

knowledge and social practice” (Fairclough,1992,3). Discourse itself is, therefore, not
visible, but it is manifested in texts (Sunderland, 2004,p.7).

1.7. The use of the terms text and discourse among researchers thus displays
considerable diversity. Similarities do nonetheless emerge. Often, text seems to refer to a
more static object, while discourse is usually associated with dynamic qualities: text is
considered as a product, while discourse is seen to include processual aspects as well
(Brown & Yule, 1983:p.23; Widdowson,1979, pp. 148–149).
6
1.8. Schiffrin, 1994, pp. 20-41

Discourse is often defined in two ways: a particular unit of language (above the
sentence), and a particular focus (on language use). These two definitions of discourse
reflect the differences between formalist and functionalist paradigms (Schiffrin, 1994, pp.
20-21)

a-Discourse is “language above the sentence or above the clause” (formalist/structural

views):

The classic definition of discourse as derived from formalist assumptions is that discourse
is „ language above the sentence or a bove the clause” (Stubbs, 1983, p.1).

In many strutural approaches, discourse is viewed as a level of structure higher than the
sentence, or higher than another unit of text.

Consistent with the definition of discourse as language “ above the sentence” many
contemporary structural analyses of discourse view the sentence as the unit of which
discourse is comprised.

The problems are:

i-The units in which people speak do not always seem like sentences.

ii-Another consequence of the view that discourse is language above the sentence is that
we may begin to expect discourse to exhibit a structure analogous to the sentences of
which it is comprised – an expectation that may be unwarranted.

We have seen that structurally based definitions of discourse lead to analyses of

constituents (smaller units) that have particular relationships with one another in a text
and that can occur in a restricted set of text level arrangement.

b-Discourse is “language in use” (functionalist views)

„The study of discourse is the study of any aspect of language use” (Fasold, 1990, p.65).

„The analysis of discourse, is necessary, the analysis of language in use. As such, it can
not be restricted to the description of linguistic forms indepedent of the purposes or

7
functions which these forms are designed to serve in human affairs.” (Brown and Yule,
1983, p.1)

As these views make clear, the analysis of language use can not be independent of the
analysis of the purposes and functions of language in human life.

A definition of discourse as language use is consistent with functionalism in general:

Discourse is viewed as a system (a socially and culturally organized way of speaking)
through which particular functions are realized.

We have seen that functional definitions of discourse assume an interrelationship

between language and context

c-Discourse is “utterances”

The view discourse as utterances captures the ideas that discourse is above (larger than)
other units of language; however, by saying that utterance (rather than sentence)is the
smaller unit of which discourse is comprised, we can suggest that discourse arises not as
a collection of decontextualized units of language structure, but as a collection of
inherently contextualized units of language use.

With the view of discourse as utterances, utterances are thought of as units of language
production (whether spoken or written) that are inherently contextualized;

Discourse is then at the intersection of structure and function

1.9. Richards et al. (1985, pp. 83-84): Discourse is a general term for examples of
language use, i.e., language which has been produced as the result of an act of
communication.

Whereas grammar refers to the rules a language use to form grammatical units of
language like clause, phrase, and sentence, discourse refers to larger units of language
such as paragraphs, conversations, and interviews.

Sometimes the study of both written and spoken discourse is known a DICOURSE
ANALYSIS; some researchers however use discourse analysis to refer to the study of
spoken discourse and TEXT LINGUISTICS to refer to the study of written discourse.

1.10. Nunan (1993):

8
To some linguists, two terms Text and Discourse are the same. To others, they are
different:

a-The terms text and discourse are interchangeable.

b-Discourse is language in action/ in use / in function, while text is the written record of
that interaction.

The term text refers to any written record of a communicative event whereas the term
discourse refers to the interpretation of the communicative event in context.

Discourse brings together language, the individuals producing the language, and the
context within which the language is used.

A communicative event: a piece of oral or written interaction, which contains a

complete message. The event itself may involve oral language (for example, a sermon, a
casual conversation, a shopping transaction) or written language ( for example, a poem, a
newspaper advertisement, a novel) (Nunan, 1993).

c-A text or piece of discourse forms a meaningful whole.

The notion that a text should form a meaningful whole –that is, convey a complete
message- is commonsensical.

2. What is discourse analysis?

2.1-Text analysis

Text analysis is the study of the formal linguistic devices that distinguish a text from
random sentences.

Text analysis is concerned with the study of written and spoken texts as language
elements strung together in relationships with one another that can be defined. It is the
study of the formal linguistic devices that distinguish a text from random sentences.

2.2-Discourse Analysis

a-the functional analysis of discourse.

b-the study of language in use / in context / in action.

c-Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language
and the contexts in which it is used.
9
d-The study of discourse is the study of any aspect of language use.

e-The study of how sentences in spoken and written language form larger meaning
meaningful units such as paragraphs, conversations, interviews, etc. (Richards et al.,
1985, p.84).

e-”The analysis of discourse, is necessary, the analysis of language in use. As such, it

can not be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independent of the purposes or
functions which these forms are designed to serve in human affairs.”(Brown and Yule,
1983,p.1)

f-Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and
the contexts in which it is used.

g-Discourse analysis also studies the text-forming devices that distinguishes a text from
random sentences. However, they do so with the reference to the purposes and functions
for which the discourse was created. Their ultimate aim is to show how the linguistic
elements enable language users to communicate in contexts.

2.3-Conversation analysis is much interested in analyzing conversations where the

emphasis is not upon building structural models but on the close observation of the
behavior of the participants in talk and on patterns which recur over a wide range of
natural data.

(Nunan, 1993)

3-Discourse and Discourse Analysis

3.1. Discourse: language in action/ in use / in function.

A discourse: a unified, meaningful unit of language in use.

3.2. Discourse analysis: The functional analysis of discourse / the analysis of a language
unit in use/ the study of language in use / in context / in action.

Activity 3 (pp.14-15): Read the following pieces of language. Do you think they are
texts in the sense of being unified stretches of language:

a. Once upon a time, there was a little white mouse called “Tiptoe”. The boys lived
in a large brick house with a thatched roof at the end of the longest street in town.
That morning Mrs. Smooks left home in a great hurry. But, too late, William

10
 realized that the car had no brakes. So they ran and they ran until eventually the
giant got tired out so that he couldn’t follow them anymore. “What an exciting
day,” she signed. And so he never goes alone to the shops anymore. (Eggins,
1994: 89).

b. I had always wanted to see Paris. However, you can imagine how excited was
once we got there. We had wanted to do some sightseeing. And unfortunately it
was cold and wet. Meanwhile we went to the Louvre instead. Prior to that it had
fined up. In addition we were exhausted by 6 o’clock. (Eggins, 1994: 91).

c. Well here we are in the tropics. I’ve spent many hours just lying around doing
nothing. We might go skin diving this afternoon which will be exciting. Well
now I ‘m supposed to say having a wonderful time, wish you were here, but I
won’t. See you soon. Love Heather. (Feez and Joice, 1998).

Answer: text a is totally ununified. Text b is somewhat unified with the

exceptions of the use of such linking words as however. Text c is more unified
and meaningful with the exception of the use of the phrase but I won’t.

IV. Spoken versus written language

What are the differences between spoken and written language?

Activity 4 / Activity 5 (pp. 15-16).

1-List what you think are the main differences between spoken and written
language.

2-Read the two texts which follow. They both refer to the same topic; the first is the
transcript of a spontaneous spoken report, and the second is a written report of the
same incident. What major differences do you find between the two texts?

A-walk down there about an hour ago to have a look / and/it is/it looks as if a bomb’s hit
it/there are caravans upside down/erhm/some on their sides/some of them have been
completely ripped away from the/area anyway/er/and I understand from the people that
erm/that the actual people that live in them/is that the/er/chasis//which are actually
chained down to concrete/er/the top part of the caravan has been ripped away from the
chasis in a lot of instances/and it’s just bowled over and over across the field.

B-I walked down there about an hour ago to have a look, and it looks as if a bomb’s hit it.
There are caravans upside down and on their sides. I understand from the people who
11
live in them that the top part of the caravan has, in a lot of instances, been ripped away
from the chasis, which is actually chained down to the concrete, and been bowled over
and over across the field.

(Wright, 1994)

Answer: Passage A is spoken language: it contains incomplete sentences (eg. And it is),
repetition, fillers (eg. erhm, er) , contractions(eg. it’s)…They are features of soken
language. Passage B is written language.

Differences between spoken and written language:

1-Extract 1 (pp.17-19)

Spoken Language Written language

Auditory Visual

Transient, temporary, immediate reception Permanent, delayed reception

Additive, rhapsodic Hierarchically ordered and linearly arranged

Aggregative Analysis, logically reasoning and abstract

categorisation

Immediare feedback Delayed or no feedback

A variety of attention and boundary signals Markers of Attention , boundaries, pointers

Pnanning and editing limited by channel Unlimited planning, editing, revision

Lexically sparse Lexically dense

Loosly grammatically structured Grammatically compact

People-centered Topic-centered

Context-dependent Context-reduced

2-Extract 2 (pp.20-22)

12
Spoken Language Written Language

Less structured syntax More structured syntax

In compete sentences, sequences of phrases Complete sentences

Little subordination Complex subordination

Active declarative forms normally found Passive, it-cleft and wh-cleft found

Markers of spoken discourse Markers to mark the relationships between

clause

Topic-comment structure Subject-predicate structure

Frequent active sentences Frequent passive sentences

13