DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH HAZARA UNIVERSITY

MANSEHRA

Submitted By: Muhammad Rayan

Submitted to Dr Nazakat Awan

Roll No: 44261

Introduction to Linguistics

IMPROVEMENT Bs 3rd

Bs 8th Literature

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH HAZARA UNIVERSITY

MANSEHRA
Discourse Analysis Defined
Whereas other areas of language study might focus on individual parts of language
—such as words and phrases (grammar) or the pieces that make up words
(linguistics)—discourse analysis looks at a running conversation involving a
speaker and listener (or a writer's text and its reader).

In discourse analysis, the context of a conversation is taken into account as well as

what's being said. This context may encompass a social and cultural framework,
including the location of a speaker at the time of the discourse, as well as
nonverbal cues such as body language, and, in the case of textual communication,
it may also include images and symbols. "[It's] the study of real language use, by
real speakers in real situations," explains Teun A. van Dijk, a noted author and
scholar in the field.

What Discourse Analysis Does

Misunderstanding relayed information can lead to problems—big or small. Being
able to distinguish subtle subtext in order to differentiate between factual reporting
and fake news, editorials, or propaganda is crucial to interpreting true meaning and
intent. This is the reason that having well-developed skills in the critical analysis of
discourse—to be able to "read between the lines" of verbal and/or written
communication—is of utmost importance.

Since the establishment of the field, discourse analysis has evolved to include a
wide range of topics, from the public versus private use of language to official
versus colloquial rhetoric, and from oratory to written and multimedia discourses.
The field of study has further branched out to be paired with the fields of
psychology, anthropology, and philosophy, thus meshing linguistics with
sociology.

"We're also 'asking not just about the rhetoric of politics, but also about the rhetoric
of history and the rhetoric of popular culture; not just about the rhetoric of the
public sphere but about rhetoric on the street, in the hair salon, or online; not just
about the rhetoricity of formal argument but also about the rhetoricity of personal
identity."—from "Discourse Analysis and Rhetorical Studies" by Christopher
Eisenhart and Barbara Johnstone

Academic Applications of Discourse Analysis

There are many avenues we can study through the lens of discourse analysis
including discourse during a political debate, discourse in advertising, television
programming/media, interviewing, and storytelling. By looking at the context of
language use, not simply the words, we can understand nuanced layers of meaning
that are added by the social or institutional aspects at work, such as gender, power
imbalance, conflicts, cultural background, and racism.

As a result, discourse analysis can be used to study inequality in society, such as

institutional racism, inherent bias in media, and sexism. We can also use it to
examine and interpret discussions regarding religious symbols located in public
places.

Real-World Applications of Discourse Analysis

Apart from scholarly applications, discourse analysis has some very pragmatic uses
as well. Specialists in the field are tasked with helping world leaders understand
the true meaning behind communications from their peers. In the field of medicine,
it's used to help physicians find ways to ensure they're better understood by people
with limited language skills, as well as guiding them in dealings when giving
patients a challenging diagnosis.

For example, in one study, transcripts of conversations between doctors and

patients were analyzed to determine where misunderstandings had occurred.1 In
another, women were interviewed about their feelings regarding a diagnosis of
breast cancer.2 How did it affect their relationships? What was the role of their
social support network? How did "positive thinking" come into play?

How Discourse Analysis Differs from Grammar Analysis

Unlike grammar analysis, which focuses on the structure of sentences, discourse

analysis focuses on the broad and general use of language within and between
particular groups of people. Another important distinction is that while
grammarians typically construct the examples they analyze, the analysis of
discourse relies on actual writings and speech of the group being studied to
determine popular usage.

In terms of textual analysis, grammarians may examine texts in isolation for

elements such as the art of persuasion or word choice (diction), but only discourse
analysis takes into account the social and cultural context of a given text.
In terms of verbal expression, discourse analysis takes in the colloquial, cultural,
and living use of language—including each and every "um," "er," and "you know,"
as well as slips of the tongue, and awkward pauses. Grammar analysis, on the other
hand, relies entirely on sentence structure, word usage, and stylistic choices. This
does, of course, often include a cultural ingredient but it's missing the human
element of spoken discourse.

4.1. Titscher et al. Methods of text and discourse analysis (2012)

This is a comprehensive book that explores in different subchapters all the features
of the twelve methods they name. The authors offer the theoretical origins, the
basic theoretical assumptions, the objectives, the outline, the method itself, the
areas of application and some similarities and differences with other methods.
They finish every method with some literature of it. This represents a
comprehensive exposition of the most important methods with a clear explanation
of the information any researcher could demand. The methods are the following:
4.1.1. Grounded Theory (Glasser/Strauss). This is a methodology for generating
theories on the basis of data, which can be linguistic and contextual. The approach
is qualitative even though the corpus is usually large amounts of text. Mostly,
interviews, notes and observation reports. 4.1.2. Ethnography (Hymes).
Ethnography is the study of individual cultures, and formal models of linguistics
for the interpretation of human behaviour in cultural contexts are studied.

4.1.9. Functional Pragmatics (Ehlich/Rehbein). This considers speakers and

hearers both relevant in the speech action and distinguishes between the surface
and the structure in the process. The structure is the socially agreed form while the
surface is the single special cases analyzed. The purpose of the speaker is basic in
this discipline. 4.1.10. Distinctions Theory Text Analysis (Tischer/Meyer).

This is also qualitative and understands communication as a three-stage selection

process: information, utterance and understanding. The hearer discriminates the
irrelevant information in the process of understanding so the starting point is
linguistics. 4.1.11. CDA (Fairclough). CDA stands for Critical Discourse Analysis.
This is based on discourse not text.

This is non-linguistic and includes intertextuality and sociocultural knowledge.

4.1.12. Discourse Historical Method (Wodak). A key idea in this approach derived
from Critical Discourse Analysis is “text planning”. The speech situation, the
status of participants, time and place, and other sociological variables are
determinants in text production. The corpus is interviews, rounds of discussion and
the like

The Importance of Discourse Analysis Step 10 The End

Neither love nor liking is necessary for the sorts of critical discussions
among different frameworks that might lead to shared journeys.  What
is required is goodwill.  And goodwill requires, at a minimum, loyalty to
what we earlier called the “interpretive principle”, the principle that says
that no matter how cherished your belief is, it still needs interpretation,
and interpretation is the product of frail human minds and histories,
not prophets or gods.
Interpretation of frameworks—in and across science, politics, religion,
society, institutions, and cultures—is a job for everyone of goodwill. 
But is it is also, at a more formal level, the job of the academic field of
discourse analysis.  Discourse analysis seeks to show how
interpretations of frameworks are made, unmade, and transformed
across history and in social interaction (which, alas, sometimes is
warfare).  Discourse analysis, as I conceive it, is inherently an applied
field, since it seeks to deal with problems the solution to which will
make the world a better place.  We hope, as well, that discourse
analysis can help make communication on the ground among
frameworks better and shared journeys more common.
Discourse analysis uses the analysis of linguistic frameworks (the
analysis of words and phrases in terms of exemplars and the
application of the principle of sufficient reason) to uncover the
workings of ontological models and frameworks in the world.  Today,
this task, more and more, involves not just language, but digital and
multimodal media and “texts”.  In this sense, we can talk about
“semiotic frameworks”, a wider category that includes linguistic
frameworks but also includes frameworks built around other sorts of
symbols or signs.
In history, social identities (“kinds of people”), linguistic and ontological
frameworks, situational applications of words to reality in specific
situations (the application of the principle of sufficient reason), and
different styles, varieties, registers, and dialects of a language (or
mixtures of languages)—what I call “social languages—are inherently
and inextricably linked.  Discourse analysis studies them together as an
interacting system.  What I call Big “D” Discourses are historically
shifting ways with words, deeds, values, feelings, beliefs, things, tools,
situational meanings, social languages, and frameworks—combined in
the “right” ways—that enact and communicate socially meaningful and
recognizable identities (“kinds of people”).  Such identities are most
often (but not always) negotiated, flexible across different contexts, and
not so much boxes as waves with clear middles but fading borders or
boundaries.
Each individual human is unique and at the same time each person
“voices” a given Discourse whenever he or she acts, speaks, or writes. 
Discourses use us to reproduce themselves through history.  Our
individuality and our participation in multiple Discourses means we can
“spin” the Discourse in certain ways and in the process, change it and
adapt it across time and contexts.  Discourses cannot live without us
and we cannot communicate and mean without them.
It is Discourses that go to war.  It is Discourses that can make peace.  It
is Discourses that can, on shared paths, intermingle and even marry
and give rise to new Discourses, perhaps better ones with better
frameworks in which to make better sense of the world and of each
other.  Our job, as discourse analysts, is not to judge (advocacy is a
different thing) and not to reach definitive truths.  Our job is to deepen
the conversations among frameworks.  This is the importance of
discourse analysis.