An Introduction to Discourse Analysis

Second edition

Discourse analysis considers how language, both spoken and written, enacts social
and cultural perspectives and identities. In this book, James Paul Gee introduces the
fi eld and presents his unique integrated approach to it.
Assuming no prior knowledge of linguistics, the author presents both a theory
of language-in-use and a method of research. Clearly structured and written in a
highly accessible style, An Introduction to Discourse Ana!ysis incorporates perspectives
from a variety of approaches and disciplines, including applied linguistics, educa-
tion, psychology, anthropology, and communication, to help students and scholars
from a range of backgrounds to formulate their own views on discourse and engage
in their own discourse analysis.
The second edition has been completely revised and updated and contains
substantial new material and examples of oral and written language, ranging from
group discussions with children, adults, students, and teachers to conversations,
interviews, academic texts, and policy documents .

James Paul Gee is the Tashia Morgridge Professor of Reading at the University
of Wisconsin at Madison. His previous publications include Social Lin8uistics and
Literacies, The Social Mind, and The New Work Order (with Glynda Hull and Colin
Lankshear).
An Introduction to
Discourse Analysis
Theory and method

James Paul Gee

Second edition

I~ ~~o~;~~n~~~up
LONDON AND NEW YORK
First published 1999
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxo n, OXI 4 4RN

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada

by Routledge
270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 100 16

Second edition published 2005

ROUl/edge iJ an imprint if (he u!y!or & Francis Group

This edition publi shed in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
"To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge's
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk:'
© 1999,200 5 James Paul Gee
All rights reser ved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any elec tronic, mechanical, or other means, novv kn own or
hereafter invented, including photocopyi ng and recording, o r in any informati o n
sto rage o r retrieval system, without permission in w riting fro m the publishers.

British Library Cma!ogu ing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library if Cong ress Caw/oging in Publication Data

Gee, James Paul.
An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and methocVJames Paul Gee.-2 nd ed.
p. em.
Includes bibliographical references and index .
ISBN 0-4 15-32860-8 - ISBN 0-4 15-3286 1-6 (pbk.) - ISBN 0-203-38332-X (e book)
I. Discourse analysis. I. Title
P302 .G4 200 5
40 I' .41 - dc22
20040 106 19

ISBN 0-203-00567-8 Master e-book ISBN

For Bead
Contents

Priface ix

1 Introduction 1

I. 1 Language as action and cdfi1iation

J.2 About this book: theory and method 5
J.3 About this book: readers and reading 8

2 Building tasks 10

2.1 BUilding things through language 10

2.2 An example 13

3 Tools of inquiry and discourses 20

3.1 Tools 20
3.2 Discourses: whos and whats 22
3.3 "Real Indians" 23
3.4 Discourses (with a big "D") 26
3.5 Discourses are not "units" with clear boundaries 28
3.6 Discourses as "kits" 32
3.7 Note 33

4 Social languages, conversations, and intertextuality 35

4. J Whos-doing-whats in language 35
4.2 Social languages 37
4.3 'Ji,vo grammars 41
4.4 An example 42
4.5 Intertextuality 46
viii Contents

4.6 Big "C' conversations 48

4.7 Social languages, intertextuality, conversations, and discourses as
tools if inquiry 5 I

5 Situated meanings and discourse models 53

5. 1 Meaning 53
5.2 Form andjunction analysis 54
5.3 Language-context analysis 57
5.4 A child acquiring the meaning if a word 58
5.5 Situated meanings and cultural models/discourse models 59
5.6 Situated meanings in and out if science 62
5.7 Situated meanings as "assemblies " 64
5.8 A pattern-recognition view if the mind 65
5.9 The social mind 68
5.10 "Situated meanings" as a tool ifinquiry 68

6 Discourse models 71
6. 1 Bachelors 7 I
6.2 Simulations in the mind 73
6.3 All meaning is local 76
6.4 Discourse models in action: middle-class parenting 79
6.5 Discourse models in corif/ict 8 I
6.6 D1ferent sorts and uses if discourse models 83
6.7 Discourse models can be partial and inconsistent 84
6.8 Discourse models as "recognition work" 88
6.9 Discourse models as tools if inquiry 92

7 Discourse analysis 94
7. I Situated meanings and discourse models revisited 94
7.2 Riflexivity 97
7.3 Situations 97
7.4 Seven bUilding tasks 104
7.5 Social languages revisited 105
7.6 Units and transcription 106
7.7 An "ideal" discourse analySiS I 10
7.8 Validity I 13
7.9 Starting to do discourse analyses 115
 Contents ix

8 Processing and organizing language 118

8. I Speech is produced in small spurts 118
8.2 Function words and content words 119
8.3 Iriformation 120
8.4 Stress and intonation 12 I
8.5 Lines 124
8.6 Stanzas 127
8.7 Macrostructure 128
8.8 Macro-lines 132
8.9 Tools cfinquiry 135

9 Sample of discourse analysis 1 137

9. I Interview data as an example 137
9.2 Co-constructing socioculturally situated identities 138
9.3 BUilding socially situated identities and bUilding d!fferent worlds 141
9.4 Social languages 147
9.5 BUilding meaning in narrative 150

10 Sample of discourse analysis 2 153

10. I A case study: Sandra 153
10.2 Sandra's narrative 158

11 Sample of discourse analysis 3 166

Appendix: Grammar in communication 182

Rqerences 194
Index 203
Preface

This new edition of An Introduction to Discourse Analysis is completely revised. I have

added new material and new examples throughout, including two new chapters
of examples of discourse analysis. I have also updated the references. But, most
importantly, I hope I have added greater clarity.
When I did the first edition, I tried to write the book as clearly as I could . I
believe academic writing should be no more - though, of course, no less - complex
than it needs to be for clear communication. I strongly believe, too, that academics
should attempt, at least some of the time, to communicate beyond the micro-com-
munities that comprise their fellow narrow specialists. Years of writing have shown
me just how hard it is to be clear, to achieve any degree oflucidity for any significant
number of people. When the first edition went to press I was pleased by its clarity.
But when I began to re-read the book in order to revise it, what had seemed so clear
before looked less lucid than I had hoped.
So I try once more to be as clear as possible, while not abandoning complexity
where it is required. I am sure that I vvill feel, in the future, that I have once again
failed, no matter how much I hope now I have succeeded. But the struggle for
clarity is not my problem alone. It is, in fact, indicative of the very subject matter of
this book. In human communication, clarity is a hope that is almost always bound
to be frustrated .
Human communication, especially across social and cultural divides, is a very
difficult matter. We humans are very good at finding meaning. We find it all over the
place, even in the stars, vvith many people still believing in the medieval art of astrol-
ogy. In fact, we are so good at finding meaning that we very often run off too quickly
with interpretations of what other people mean that are based on our own social
and cultural worlds, not theirs. Too often we are wrong in ways that are hurtful.
When we sit back and reflect on what people have said and written - a luxury
we have too little in life, but the basis of discourse analysis - we often discover bet-
ter, deeper, and more humane interpretations. The small child whom the teacher
assumed made no sense at sharing time looks a lot smarter after a little reflection,
which can be helped along by recording the child for a later, more reflective listen-
xii Priface
ing. A person from a different race, class, or culture looks, on reflection, if the
reflection is based on any knowledge, to have made both a better point and a better
impression on second thought than on first.
We believe it a matter of competence to re-read a good book or re-watch a great
movie to get more out of it. But we rarely apply the same principle - which now
becomes a principle of ethics - to our fellow citizens. And that is, in a sense, what
discourse analysis is all about. Indeed, writing a second time - as in the case of this
book - is just a way to be in dialog with ourselves, to think more deeply about what
we mean and how others will interpret us. In a world in which people rush off to kill
those who don't agree with them and countries rush off to war, it may be a matter of
survival that we learn to base our views and actions on second (and more) hearings
and readings of others and second sayings and writings by ourselves.
Even after we have re-heard or re-read, we may still disagree with people. And
they may have had good or bad motives. But we humans, when it comes to using
language to make sense, are very good indeed. Whether we are telling the truth or
lying, we build intricate, complex, and highly patterned oral and written texts with
which to accomplish our goals. We are creatures of language. Evolution has seen to
that.
Thus, we can say that there is an imbalance in human communication: each
human being creates complex meanings in language, but each of us is so good at
finding meanings that we are often too quick to attribute meanings to others that
are rooted more in our own cultures, identities, and fears than they are on a close
inspection of what the other person has said or written.
So a second listening or a second reading is, in many cases, a matter of com-
petence (what we need to do to be competent in our areas of work) and, in many
cases, too, a matter of ethics (if we want to be fair) . In the end, discourse analysis is
one way to engage in a very important human task. The task is this: to think more
deeply about the meanings we give people's words so as to make ourselves better,
more humane people and the world a better, more humane place. While we still
may disagree with others after reflection, we will, nonetheless, be in a position to be
a much better critic, to represent what we believe in a much better way. But we may
also sometimes change our own viewpoints to be more positively inclined toward
others than we were initially. We will then, too, be better placed to cooperate with
them in human endeavors, especially in a fast-changing, global, culturally diverse
(and often dangerous) world.
But, perhaps, this all sounds too grandiose for an academic area of study, which
is, of course, what discourse analysis is. Talk of becoming a better person and mak-
ing a better world? If such talk does seem too grandiose to you, then, I suggest, you
have been reading - and doing - the wrong academic work. A silly claim, you say?
Well, then, you will just have to read my book twice.
James Paul Gee
August 2004
1 Introduction

1.1 Language as action and affiliation

Many people think that the primary purpose of language is to "communicate infor-
mation." However, language serves a great many functions and giving and getting
information, even in our new Information Age, is by no means the only one. If I
had to single out a primary function of human language, it would be not one, but
the following two closely related functions: to support the performance of social ac-
tivities and social identities and to support human affiliation within cultures, social
groups, and institutions.
Of course, these two functions are connected. Cultures, social groups, and insti-
tutions shape social activities and identities: there are no activities such as "water-
cooler gossip sessions" or "corridor politics," no identities such as water-cooler
gossip or corridor politician, vvithout an institution whose water cooler, social ar-
rangements, and corridors are the sites of these activities and identities. At the same
time, though, cultures, social groups, and institutions get produced, reproduced,
and transformed through human activities and identities. There is no institution
unless it is enacted and reenacted moment-by-moment in activities, and the identi-
ties connected to them, like "water-cooler gossip sessions," "corridor politics,"
meetings, and numerous other sorts of social interactions, all of which partly have a
life of their own apart from larger cultural and institutional forces . Groups and in-
stitutions render certain sorts of activities and identities meaningful; certain sorts of
activities and identities constitute the nature and existence of specific social groups
and institutions.
This book is concerned with a theory and a method for studying how language
gets recruited "on site" to enact specific social activities and social identities. By
"identities" I mean different ways of participating in different sorts of social groups,
cultures, and institutions, for example ways of being a "good student," an "avid bird
watcher," a "mainstream politician," a "tough cop," a (video) "gamer," and so on
and so forth through a nearly endless ever-changing list. In the process, we will see
that language-in-use is everywhere and always "political."
2 Introduction

But what do I mean by "political"? We've got to be careful here: By "politics,"

don't mean "Democrats" and "Republicans" or national policy concerns. By
"politics" I mean how social goods are thought about, argued over, and distributed in
society. "Social goods" are anything that a group of people believes to be a source
of power, status, value, or worth, whether this be "street smarts," academic intel-
ligence, money, control, possessions, verbal abilities, "looks," age, wisdom, knowl-
edge, technology, literacy, morality, "common sense," and so on through another
very long list.
So how does "politics" in this sense get into language-in-use? When we speak
or write we always use the grammar of our language to take a particular perspective
on what the "world" is like. Is this combatant a "freedom fighter" or a "terrorist"?
Is Microsoft Windows "loaded with bugs" or did Microsoft "load it with bugs"? Is
the glass "half full" or "half empty"? This grammatical perspective-taking process
involves us in taking perspectives on what is "normal" or not; what is "acceptable"
or not; what is "right" or not; what is "real" or not; what is the "way things are" or
not; what is the "ways things ought to be" or not; what is "possible" or not; what
"people like us" or "people like them" do or don't do; and so on and so forth,
through another nearly endless list. Being "normal," "acceptable," "right," "real,"
"the way things are," "the ways things ought to be," "possible," or "what people like
us do," as opposed to their opposites, are often themselves social goods and all have
deep implications for how we believe or wish potential social goods are or ought
to be distributed. They have deep implications, as well, for how we act in regard to
those beliefs and ",ljshes.
There is nothing special then about politics. Politics is part and parcel of using
language. But this does not mean that analyzing language is just an invitation to
pontificate about our political views. Far from exonerating us from looking at the
empirical details of language and social action, an interest in politics demands that
we engage with such details. Politics, in terms of social relations where social goods
are at stake, has its lifeblood in such details. It is there that "social goods" are cre-
ated, sustained, distributed, and redistributed. It is there that people are harmed
and helped.
Let me give a brief example of how language details lead to social activities,
identities, and politics, far beyond "giving and getting information." My example
here will involve a written text, though most of the examples later in this book will
come from speech. Consider the following sentences, chosen at random from Paul
Gagnon's book (Gagnon 1987). I have bolded some aspects of the text that I ",ljl!
discuss below:

Also secure, by 1689, was the principle of representative government, as

tested against the two criteria for valid constitutions proposed in the previous
chapter. As to the first criterion, there was a genuine balance of power in
English society, expressing itself in the Whig and Tory parties. As narrowly
 Introduction 3

confined to the privileged classes as these were, they nonetheless rep-

resented different factions and tendencies. Elections meant real choice among
separate, contending parties and personalities.

In his book, sponsored by the American Federation of Teachers, the Education

Excellence Network, and Freedom House, Gagnon speaks to what he thinks ought
to be the "essential plot" of Western history as it should be taught in our schools.
In the sentences quoted above, Gagnon uses certain aspects of English grammar as a
resource with which to "design" his sentences in a way that will make them do the
social work he wants them to do.
In English, the subject of a sentence is normally placed at the beginning of the
sentence, as in "Elections meant real choice," where "elections" is the subject of
the sentence. Gagnon uses the resources of English grammar to see to it that the
subject of his sentences is not in its "normal" place at the beginning of the sentence,
except for his last sentence, whose subject ("elections") is at the beginning. I have
bolded the beginnings of the other sentences, none of which is the subject of those
sentences. It is clear that Gagnon's use of English grammar to design his text in this
way creates connections in his text, allowing it to flow from sentence to sentence
in a rather artful way. However, Gagnon's use of English grammar does much more
than this.
The subject of a sentence, usually the first thing in the sentence, is the topic we
want to say something about. Sometimes, however, we place material that is not the
subject/topic of the sentence in initial position, rather than the subject, as in '1\t
least in Italy, elections mean real choice," where the phrase "at least in Italy" has
been placed at the front of the sentence. Such "fronted" material - material that
is at the front of the sentence, but is not the subject of the sentence - functions as
a background context and launching off point against which other later information
is joregrounded as the main or focal point. Thus, in our example ("At least in Italy,
elections mean real choice"), the main focal claim "elections mean real choice"
is contextualized within the background assumption that we are talking about or
limiting our claim to "at least in Italy."
Thus, in Gagnon's text, material such as '1\Iso secure, by 1689" and '1\s to the
first criterion" is background material, launching off points and context from within
which later more focal information is to be viewed and evaluated. Placed where they
are, these phrases allow Gagnon to "flow" to his main foregrounded information
in each sentence (Le., to representative government as he has defined it earlier and
the balance of power represented by the Tories and Whigs), while providing the
contextual scaffolding needed to frame his main points (or, as we will see below,
"cushion" them).
H aving used such "backgrounding-foregrounding" devices twice (and several
times earlier), Gagnon does it again in the sentence "As narrowly confined to
the privileged classes as these were, they [the Whig and Tory parties] nonethe-
4 Introduction

less represented different factions and tendencies." This allows him to treat the
fact that the Whig and Tory parties were confined "to the privileged classes" as
connecting tissue and background information, a mere concession, despite the fact
that some other historians might see this as a focal piece of information. His final
sentence about elections can now be issued with no "background." The major rea-
son to contest that these were meaningful elections has already been relegated to
the background.
In other words, Gagnon has relegated to a "background consideration" what
some other historians would have placed in the foreground of their arguments.
These historians would see narrow class privilege as calling into question the na-
ture of elections based on such privilege. They would have designed their language
to background and foreground things differently. Perhaps they would have written
something like "Though the Whig and Tory parties differed on some issues [back-
ground], they were narrowly confined to the privileged classes and represented only
their interests [foreground]." These historians and Gagnon differ not over facts,
but over what should be at the center or focus of our attention. We can really only
understand Gagnon deeply and critically if we understand his ways with words in
relationship to the different ways with words of other historians, historians who
might claim, for instance, that elections are not meaningful or democratic if con-
fined to elites.
Am I accusing Gagnon of using English grammar for "political purposes"? If by
this we mean that I am saying that Gagnon is using the resources of English gram-
mar to create a perspective with implications, the answer is most certainly "yes." But
it could not be otherwise. The whole point of grammar, in speech or writing, is in
fact to allow us to create just such political perspectives. Grammar simply does not
allow us to speak or write from no perspective at all.
Is Gagnon "just" communicating information? Hardly. He is engaging in a very
real social activity, a project, an attempt to create new affiliations and transform old
ones over who will teach and what will be taught in the schools, and over what is and
what is not "real history" or "correct history." This, too, could not be otherwise.
To read Gagnon without regard for the way he recruits grammatical features for his
social and, yes, political purposes is to have missed most of the action. In fact, we
can hardly have a discussion with Gagnon, engage with his views, if we have missed
this action.
Gagnon is also, in and through language, enacting a specific social identity as
a particular type of historian (against other types of historians), a historian who
connects history, citizenship, patriotism, and schools together in a certain way. We
might call him a "traditional" or "conservative" historian. Furthermore, his text is
only a part of a larger project in which he was engaged, a project in setting standards
for school history and fighting the "history wars" against those who hold radically
different perspectives on the nature, purposes, and goals of history, schooling, and
society than he does.
 Introduction 5

Note, too, by the way, that a historian who wants to "rise above" debates about
standards in public schools and "history wars" and write as an "objective" and "dis-
passionate" scholar, simply retelling the "facts," will only have designed a text whose
language enacts a different set of perspectives and a different politics. That text will
be designed to render texts like Gagnon's "unprofessional," "mere politics," "just
about schools," not "real history." Writing as if all you have to offer are "the facts"
or "the truth" is also a way if writin8, a way of using language to enact an activity and
an identity, too.
This does not mean that "nothing is true" or that "everything is equally good."
No, for better or worse, physicists' bombs do go off and astrologists' don't. Rather,
it means that "truth" (which I would define as doing better, rather than worse,
in not getting physically, socially, culturally, or morally "bitten" by the world) is a
matter of taking, negotiating, and contesting perspectives created in and through
language.
What I want readers to get from this example is that speakers and writers use the
resources of grammar to desi8n their sentences and texts in ways that communicate
their perspectives on reality, carry out various social activities (e.g., in Gagnon's
case, trying to enforce the teaching of certain sorts of history in schools), and allow
them to enact different social identities (e.g., in Gagnon's case, being a certain type
of historian). We are all designers - artists, in a sense - in this respect. Our medium
is language.

1.2 About this book: theory and method

Now it is time to turn to some "truth in lending" disclaimers. These are all the
more appropriate here, as this book is meant to "lend" readers certain tools of
inquiry, fully anticipating that these tools will transformed, or even abandoned, as
readers invent their own versions of them or meld them with other tools embedded
in different perspectives.
This book is an introduction to one approach to discourse analysis (the analy-
sis of language-in-use). There are many different approaches to discourse analysis
(see, for example, Schiffrin 1994; van Dijk 1997a,b; Jaworski and Coupland 1999;
Wodak and Meyer 2002; Fairclough 2003; Tannen et 01. 2003; Rogers 2004), none
of them, including this one, uniquely "right." Different approaches fit different
issues and questions better or worse than others. And, too, different approaches
sometimes reach similar conclusions though using different tools and terminologies
connected to different "micro-communities" of researchers.
Furthermore, the approach to discourse analysis taken in this book is not "mine."
No set of research tools and no theory belongs to a single person, no matter how
much academic style and our own egos sometimes tempt us to write that way. I
have freely begged, borrowed, and patched together. If there is any quality in my
work, it is primarily in the "taste" with which I have raided others' stores and in
6 Introduction

the way I have adapted and mixed together the ingredients and, thereby, made the
soup. Some will, of course, not recognize the ingredient they have contributed, or,
at least, not want to admit they do after they taste my soup. If there are occasional
inventions, their only chance for a full life is that someone else will borrow them
and mix them into new soup.
A note on the soup: the approach to discourse analysis in this book seeks to bal-
ance talk about the mind, talk about social interaction and activities, and talk about
society and institutions more than is the case in some other approaches. So some
may think my approach too "cognitive," others may think it too "social" (for my
work on language and learning in social and cognitive terms, see Gee 2003,2004).
However, I believe we have to get minds, bodies, social interactions, social groups,
and institutions all in the soup together.
This book is partly about a method of research. However, I hasten to point out
that the whole issue of research "methods" is, as far as I am concerned, badly con-
fused . First of all, any method always goes with a theory. Method and theory cannot
be separated, despite the fact that methods are often taught as if they could stand
alone. Any method of research is a way to investigate some particular domain. In
this case, the domain is language-in-use. There can be no sensible method to study
a domain unless one also has a theory of what that domain is. Thus, this book offers,
as it must, a theory about the nature of language-in-use.
People with different theories about a domain ,viII use different methods for their
research. The reason this is so is because a research method is made up of various
"tools of inquiry" and strategies for applying them. Tools of inquiry are designed
to describe and explain what the researcher takes to exist and to be important in a
domain. Thus, when theories about a domain differ - for instance, a theory about
what language-in-use is or about what evolution is - tools of inquiry will differ as
well. For example, if your theory is that evolution works at the level of cells, you
will use different methods of research in biology than if you believe it works at the
level of genes. You will have different methods again if you believe it operates at the
level of species.
Besides seeing that methods change with theories, it is important, as well, to see
that research, whether in physics, literary criticism, or discourse analysis, is not an
algorithmic procedure; it is not a set of "rules" that can be followed step-by-linear-
step to get guaranteed results. There is no "scientific method," even in the "hard"
sciences, if by this we mean such a set of rules to follow. Rather, research adopts
and adapts specific tools of inquiry and strategies for implementing them. These
tools and strategies ultimately reside in a "community of practice" formed by those
engaged in such research.
Such tools and strategies are continually and flexibly adapted to specific issues,
problems, and contexts of study. They are continually transformed as they are ap-
plied in practice. At the same time, new researchers in an area are normed by
examples of research that more advanced researchers in the area take (for the time)
 Introduction 7
to be "prototypical" examples of that area's tools and strategies in operation (see
Mishler 1990, a now classic paper). Methods are through and through social and
communal.
This book will introduce various tools of inquiry for what I will call" DIdiscourse
analysis" and strategies for using them (and in a moment I will say why the odd
"Did") . It will give a number of examples of the tools in action, as well. But the
reader should keep in mind that these tools of inquiry are not meant to be rigid
definitions. Rather, they are meant to be "thinking devices" that guide inquiry in
regard to specific sorts of data and specific sorts of issues and questions. They are
meant to be adapted for the reader's own purposes. They are meant, as well, to be
transformed as the reader adapts them to his or her own theory of the domain. Of
course, if the reader's theory gets too far away from my theory of the domain, the
tools will be less and less easily or sensibly adaptable and useful.
The distinction between "Discourse" with a "big D" and "discourse" with a
"little d" plays a role throughout this book. This distinction is meant to do this: we,
as "applied linguists" or "sociolinguists," are interested in how language is used "on
site" to enact activities and identities. Such language-in-use I will call "discourse"
with a "little d." But activities and identities are rarely ever enacted through lan-
guage alone.
To "pull off" being an "X" doing "Y" (e.g., a Los Angeles Latino street-gang
member warning another gang member off his territory, or a laboratory physicist
convincing colleagues that a particular graph supports her ideas, or, for that mat-
ter, a laboratory physicist warning another laboratory physicist off her research
territory), it is not enough to get just the words "right," though that is crucial. It
is also necessary to get one's body, clothes, gestures, actions, interactions, symbols,
tools, technologies (be they guns or graphs), values, attitudes, beliefs, and emotions
"right," as well, and all at the "right" places and times.
When "little d" discourse (Ianguage-in-use) is melded integrally with non-
language "stuff" to enact specific identities and activities, then I say that "big
D" Discourses are involved . We are all members of many, a great many, different
Discourses, Discourses which often influence each other in positive and negative
ways, and which sometimes breed with each other to create new hybrids. When
you "pull off" being a culturally specific sort of "everyday" person, a "regular" at
the local bar, a certain type of African-An1erican or Greek-Australian, a certain type
of cutting-edge particle physicist or teenage heavy-metal enthusiast, a teacher or a
student of a certain sort, or any of a great many other "ways of being in the world,"
you use language and "other stuff" - ways of acting, interacting, feeling, believing,
valuing, and using various sorts of objects, symbols, tools, and technologies - to
recognize yourself and others as meaning and meaningful in certain ways . In turn,
you produce, reproduce, sustain, and transform a given "form of life" or Discourse.
All life for all of us is just a patchwork of thoughts, words, objects, events, actions,
and interactions in Discourses.
8 Introduction

So, this book will introduce tools of inquiry with which to study discourse in
Discourses. Finally, let me say that in D/discourse analysis we are not interested
in specific analyses of data just in and for themselves. A D/discourse analysis must
have a point. We are not interested in simply describing data so that we can admire
the intricacy of language, though such intricacy is indeed admirable. Rather, we are
interested, beyond description, in two things: (a) illuminating and gaining evidence
for our theory of the domain, a theory that helps to explain how and why language
works the way it does when it is put into action; and (b) contributing, in terms of
understanding and intervention, to important issues and problems in some "ap-
plied" area (e.g., education) that interests and motivates the researcher.
Thanks to the fact that D/discourse analyses must have a "point," this book will
have relevance to "applied" issues throughout, though these issues are not always
in the foreground of attention. In D/discourse analysis, any idea that applications
and practice are less prestigious or less important or less "pure" than theory has
no place. Such a notion has no place, because, as the reader will see, the theory of
language in this book is that language has meaning only in and through social practices,
practices which often leave us morally complicit with harm and injustice unless
we attempt to transform them. It is a tenet of this book that any proper theory of
language is a theory of practice.

1.3 About this book: readers and reading

This book is directed at three audiences. It is meant to introduce students and
researchers in other areas to one form of discourse analysis that I hope they can use
and experiment with as they learn other forms of discourse analysis and come up
with their own ideas. It is meant, as well, for people interested in language, culture,
and institutions, but who have not focused their own work on discourse analysis.
Finally, it is meant for my colleagues in discourse studies, so that they can compare
and contrast their own views to those developed here, and so that, together, we can
advance our common enterprise of understanding how language works in society to
create better and worse worlds, institutions, and human relationships.
The book is structured in a somewhat odd way. The "method" is fully sketched
out in Chapter 7. Each of Chapters 2-6 discusses, with many examples, specific
tools of inquiry that are part of the overall method and strategies for using them.
These tools and strategies are fully embedded in a theory oflanguage-in-use in cul-
ture and society. Thus, that theory is also laid out in Chapters 2-6. Chapter 7 briefly
recapitulates our tools of inquiry and places them in the framework of an overall
approach to D/discourse analysis. I also discuss the issue of validity for D/discourse
analysis in this chapter.
Chapter 8 deals with some linguistic details (various aspects of grammar and dis-
course) that play an important role in D/discourse analysis. Here issues about how
speech is planned and produced are taken up. These linguistic details will, hopefully,
 Introduction 9

make more sense once the "big picture" is made clear in Chapters 2-7, and will
give readers some additional tools with which to deal with the empirical details of
discourse analysis. Chapters 9-11 are extended examples of D/discourse analysis
using some of the tools and strategies developed earlier in the book. These chapters
are by no means meant to be any sort of step-by-step "how to" manual; they are
simply meant to exemplifY in practice a few of the tools discussed in this book.
My analyses throughout this book do not assume any specific theory of grammar
or, for that matter, any great depth of knowledge about grammar. However, readers
may want to supplement their reading of this book with some additional reading
about grammar, preferably grammar as it functions in commurllcation and social
interaction. The best known such "functional" approach to grammar is that devel-
oped by M. A. K. Halliday (1994). Good introductory secondary sources exist on
Halliday's approach to grammar (e.g., see Martinet a1. 1997; Thompson 2004) . For
readers who want a quick overview of technical matters about how grammar works
in communication and social interaction, I have given a brief introduction to this
topic as an appendix to this book. Different readers may want to read this appendix
at different points in the reading of the main material in the book.
Since this book is meant to be an "introduction," I have tried not to clutter up
the chapters with long lists of interpolated references. The downside of this policy
is that I will have to leave out references to the more specialized work of many
colleagues whose work I value greatly. The upside is that people new to discourse
analysis may actually read some of the material I cite and will have good places to
start their further investigations. The material I do cite is, in most cases, replete
with further references to the literature. Some chapters end with a note containing
further references to the literature. Otherwise, I have eschewed footnotes .
Since the word "method" so triggers in our rrlinds ideas of a "step-by-step"
set of "rules" to follow, I want to stress, once again, in closing, that that is not
what "method" means here. Rather, it means sets of "thinking devices" with which
one can investigate certain sorts of questions, with due regard for how others have
investigated such questions, but with adaptation, innovation, and creativity as well.
"Validity" is communal: if you take risks and make mistakes, your colleagues will
help you clean up the mess - that's what they're there for. The quality of research
often resides in how fruitful our rrlistakes are: that is, in whether they open up paths
on which others can then make more progress than we have.
Finally, having repeatedly used the term "D/discourse analysis" above to make
the point that we are interested in analyzing language as it is fully integrated with
all the other elements that go into social practices (ways of thinking or feeling, ways
of manipulating objects or tools, ways of using non-linguistic symbol systems, etc.),
we can now dispense with this cumbersome term. It will just clutter up the text and
the point is now made. Throughout this book I will usually simply use the phrase
"discourse analysis," but will mean by this phrase analyses that deal with both "little
d" discourse and "big D " Discourse.
References

Agar, M. (1994). Language Shock: Understanding the Culture if 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. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
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.
Barsalou, L. W (1991). Deriving categories to achieve goals. In: G. 1-1. Bower, ed., The
PsycholoaY if Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, Vol. 27. New York:
Academic Press, pp. 1-64.
Barsalou, L. W (1992). Cognitive PsycholoaY: An Overview Jor Cognitive Scientists. Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.
Bartlett, L. and Holland, D. (2002). Theorizing the space of literacy practices, Ways if
Knowing}ournal, 2.1: 10-22.
Barton, D. and Hamilton. M. (1998). Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community.
London: Routledge.
Baugh, J. (2000). Beyond Ebonics. Linguistic Pride and Racial Prejudice. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bazerman, C. (1989). Shaping Written Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bechtel, Wand Abrahamsen, A. (1990). Connectionism and the Mind: An Introduction to Parallel
Processing in Networks. Oxford: Basil Blackvvell.
Bechtel, Wand Richardson, R. C. (1993). Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization
in Scientific Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W M., Swindler, A. and Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits if
the Heart. Individualism and Committment in American L!fe. New York: Harper & Row.
Berkenkotter, C. and Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication.
Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Bernstein, B. (1974). Classes. Codes and Control. Vol. I., 2nd rev. edn. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul (original 1971).
Bernstein, B. (1996). PedagoaY' Symbolic Control. and Identity: Theory. Research, Critique. London:
Taylor & Francis.
 Riferences 195
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social PsycholoaY' Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P (1977). Outline if a Theory if Practice . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P (1985). Distinction: a Social Critique if the judgemen t if Taste. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Bourdieu, P (1990a). In Other Words: Essays Towards a RifIexive Sociol0aY' Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Bourdieu, P (1990b). The Logic if Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P (1998). Practical Reason. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Brazil, D., Coulthard, M., and Johns, C. (1980). Discourse In tonation and Language Teaching.
London: Longman.
Bruer, J. T (1993). SchoolsJor Thought: a ScienceJor Learning in the Classroom. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Calion, M. and Latour, B. (1992). Don't throw the baby out with the bath school! A reply to
Collins and Yearly. In : A. Pickering, ed., Science as Practice and Culture . Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, pp. 343-68.
Carbaugh, D. (1996). Situating Selves: the Communication if Social Identi ties in American Scenes.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Carspecken, I~ F. (1996). Critical Ethnography in Educational Research: a Theoretical and Practical
Guide. New York: Routledge.
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.
Chafe, W L. (1980). The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative.
In: W L. Chafe, ed., The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects if Narrative
Production. Norwood: Ablex, pp. 9-50.
Chafe, W L. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and TIme: the Flow and Displacement if Conscious
Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Churchland, PM. (1995). The Engine if Reason, the Seat if the Soul. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Churchland, P S. and Sejnowski, T J. (1992). The Computational Brain. Cambridge: BradforcV
MIT Press.
Clark, A. (\989). Microcognition. Philosophy, Cognitive Science, and Parallel Distributed Processing.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Clark, A. (\993). Associative Engines. Connectionism. Concepts. and Representational Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, A. (1997). Being There. Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Clark, A. (2003). Natural-born Cyborgs. WJ:y Minds and Technologies are Made to Merge. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Clark, I-I. I-I. (\996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cocker, M. (200 \). Birders. Tales if a Tribe. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Collins, J. C. and Porras, J. I. (\994). Built to Last. Succesiful Habits if Visionary Companies. New
York: Harper Business.
Crick, F. (1994). Th e Astonishing Hypothesis: the Scientific Search For the Soul. New York:
Scribners.
Daly, M. (\990). GynlEcoloaY' Boston: Beacon.
196 Riferences

D'Andrade, R. (1984) . Cultural meaning systems. In: R. A. Shweder and R. A. LeVine, eds,
Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp.88-119.
D'Andrade, R. (1995). The Development if Coanitive Anthropolo8J. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
D'Andrade, R. and Strauss, c., eds (1992). Human Motives and Cultural Models . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Douglas, M. (1986). How Institutions Think. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.
Duranti, A. (1997). Linauistic Anthropolo8J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, A. and Goodwin, c., eds (1992). Rethinkina Context: [anauaae as an Interactive
Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992) . Discursive Psycholo8J. London: Sage.
Edwards, J. A. and Lampert, M. D., ed. (1993). Talkina Data: Transcription and Codina in
Discourse Research. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Elman, J. L., Bates, E., Johnson, M. H ., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D ., and Plunkett, K.
(1996). Rethinkina Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Engestrom, Y. (1987) . [eamina by Expandina: An Activiry- Theoretical Approach to Developmental
Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engestrom, Y. (1990). [eamina, Workina and Imaainina: Twelve Studies in Activiry Theory. Helsinki:
Orienta- Konsultit.
Fairclough, N. (1989). [anauaae and Power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Chanae . Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Ana!rsis. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Ana!rsina Discourse: Textual Ana!rsis Jor Social Research. London:
Routledge.
Fillmore, C. (1975) . An alternative to checklist tlleories of meaning. In: C. Cogen, H.
Thompson, G. Thurgood, K. Whistler, and J. Wright, eds, Proceedinas if the First Annual
Meetina if the BerkelEJ [inauistics SOciery. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley, pp.
123-3J.
Fleck, L. (1979, original 1935). The Genesis and Development if a Scientific Fact. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Foucault, M. (1966). The Order if Thinas: An Archaeolo8J if Human Sciences. New York: Random
I-louse.
Foucault, M. (1969). The Archeolo8J if Knowledae. New York: Random I-louse.
Foucault, M. (1973). The Birth if the Clinic. An Archaeolo8J if Medical Perception. New York:
Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish. The Birth if the Prison. New York: Pant11eon.
Foucault, M. (1978). The History ifSexualiry, Vol. 1: An Introduction. New York: Pant11eon.
Foucault, M. (1980). In: C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Meplam, and K. Soper, eds, Power/
Knowledae: Selected Interviews and Other Writinas 1972-1977. Brighton: Harvester Press.
Foucault, M. (1984). The History ifSexualiry, Vol. 2: The Use if Pleasure. New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1985). In: P Rainbow, ed. The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon.
Freccero, J. (1986). Autobiography and narrative. In: T. C. I-Ieller, M. Sosna, and D. E.
Wellbery, ,,~th A. I. Davidson, A. Swidler, and I. Watt, eds, Reconstructina Individualism.
Autonomy, Individualiry, and the Se!fin Western Thouaht. Stanford: Stanford University Press,
pp. 16-29.
 Riferences 197

Gagnon, I~ (1987). Democrao/'s Untold Story: What World History Textbooks Neglect . Washington:
American Federation oneachers, pp. 65-71.
Gardner, H. (1991). The Unschooled Mind: H ow Children Think and H ow Schools Should Teach.
New York: Basic Books.
Gee, J. I~ (1985). The narrativization of experience in the oral style. J ournal if Education,
167: 9-35. [Reprinted in C. Mitchell and K. Weiler, eds, Rewriting Literao/: Culture and the
Discourse if the Other, New York: Bergin & Garvey, 1992, pp. 77-101.]
Gee,J. I~ (1986). Units in the production of discourse. Discourse Processes, 9: 391-422.
Gee, J. I~ (1990a). Social Linguistics and Literacies: IdeoloBY in Discourses. London: Falmer.
Gee, ] . P. (1990b). Memory and myth: a perspective on narrative, introduction to A.
McCabe and C. Peterson, eds, Developing Narrative Structure . Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum,
pp. 1-25.
Gee,]. P. (1991) . A lingu istic approach to narrative. Journal if Narrative and Life History, 1:
15-39.
Gee, J. P. (1992). The Social Mind: Language, IdeoloBY' and Social Practice. New York: Bergin &
Garvey.
Gee, J. P. (1993). Criticalliteracy/socially perceptive literacy: a study of language in action,
Australian Journal if Language and Literao/, 16: 333-55.
Gee,]. I~ (1996). Social Linguistics and Literacies: IdeoloBY in Discourses, 2nd edn. London: Taylor
& Francis.
Gee, J. P. (2000). "ieenagers in new times: a new literacy studies perspective, Journal if
Adolescent &...Adult Literao/, 43: 412-20.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What Video Games have to Teach Us About Learning and Literao/. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2004) . Situated Language and Learning: a Critique if Traditional Schooling. London:
Routledge.
Gee,]. P. and Crawford, V (1998).1'"vo kinds of teenagers: Language, identity, and social class.
In: D. Alverman, K. Hinchman, D. Moore, S. Phelps, and D. Waff, eds, Reconceptualizing
the Literacies in Adolescents' Lives. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp. 225-45 .
Gee, J. I~, Hull, G., and Lankshear, C. (1996). The New Work Order. Behind the Language if the
New Capitalism. Boulder: Westview.
Gee, J. P., Allen, A.-R., and Clinton, K. (2001). Language, class, and identity: Teenagers
fashioning themselves through language, Linguistics and Education, 12: 175-94.
Geertz, C. (1973). Th e Interpretations if Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge. Further Essays in Interpretive AnthropoloBY' New York: Basic
Books.
Goffman, I. (1981). Forms if Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Good,,~n, C. and Heritage, ]. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review if AnthropoloBY
19: 283-307.
Good,,~n, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said. Talk as Social Organization Among Black Children.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Griffiths, P. (1986). Early vocabulary. In: P. Fletcher and P. Garman, eds, Language AcquiSition,
second ed ition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 279-306.
Gumperz, ]. ]. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. c., eds (1996). Rethinking Linguistic RelatiVity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
198 Riferences
Habermas, J. (1984). TheolJ if Communicative Action, Vol. 1, trans. by T McCarthy. London:
Heinemann.
Hacking, I. (2000). The Social Construction if What. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and Written Language . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Edward
Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1989) . Language, Context, and Text: Aspects if Language as a
Social-Semiotic Perspective . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hanks, W F. (1996). Language and Communicative Practices. Boulder: Westview Press.
Harkness, S., Super, c., and Keefer, C. H. (1992). Learning to be an American parent: how
cultural models gain directive force . In R. D' Andrade and C. Strauss, eds, Human Motives
and Cultural Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163-78 .
Havelock, E. A. (1986). The Muse Learns to Write: Riflections on Orality and Literacyjrom Antiquity
to the Present . New Haven: Yale University Press.
Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and TIme. New York: Harper & Row.
Heritage, J. (1984). Gaifinkel and EthnomethodoloBJ. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hicks, D . (1995). Discourse, learning, and teaching. In: M. W Apple, ed., Review if Research
in Education 21. Washington: AERA, pp. 49-95.
Hofstadter, D. and the Fluid Analogies Research Group (1995). Fluid Concepts and Creative
Analogies: Computer Models if the Fundamental Mechanisms if Thought . New York: Basic
Books.
Hofstadter, D . R. (1997). Le ton beau de Maroc.' In Praise if the Music if Language . New York:
Basic Books.
Holland, D. and Quinn, N. eds (1987). Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Holland, D., Skinner, D., Lachicotte, W, and Cain C. (1998). Identity and Agency in Cultural
Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations if Sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Hymes, D. (1996). Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality. Toward an Understanding if
Voice. London: laylor & Francis.
Jaworski, A. and Coupland, N., eds (1999). The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge.
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
I-louse.
Keil, F. (1979). Semantic and Conceptual Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Keil, F. (1989). Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge: MIT Press.
 Riferences 199

Kno rr Cetina, K. (1992). The co uch, the cathedral, and the laborato ry: o n the relationship
between experiment and labo rator y, in science. In: A. Pickering, ed. , Science as Practice and
Culture, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 11 3-37 .
Kochman, T. (1981). Black and White Styles in Corif/ict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kress, G. (1985). Linauistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kress, G. (1996). Bifore Writina: Rethinkina Paths in to Literao/. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T (1996) . Readina Im aaes: The Grammar if Visual Desian. London:
Routledge.
Labov, W (1972). Lanauaae in the Inn er City. Philadelphia: University of Penn sylvan ia Press,
pp. 201-40 and 354-96.
Labov, Wand Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experiences.
In: J. Helm, ed., Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts: Proceedinas if the J 966 Annual Sprina
Meetina if the American Ethnoloaical SOciety. Seattle: University of Washington Press, pp.
12-44. [Re printed inJoumal if Narrative and Life History, 7: 3-38.]
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Danaerous Thinas: What Cateaories Reveal about the Mind.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. and John son, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Latour, B. (1987) . Science in Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1991). We Ha ve Never Been Modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lave, J. (1988) . Coanition in Practice . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J . and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Leamina : Leaitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Camb ridge University Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1995). Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynam ics . Londo n: Taylor & Francis.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1978) . Activio/> Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-
Hall.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In: J. V. Wertsh, ed ., The
Concept if Activity in Soviet PsycholoaY' New Yo rk: M. E. Sharpe, pp. 37-71.
Level t, W J. M. (1989). Speakina. From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Levinso n, S. C. (1983). Praamatics. Cambridge: Ca mbridge University Press.
Levinso n, S. C. (1996). Relativity in spatial conception and description. In: J. J. Gumperz
and S. C. Levinson, eds, Rethinkina [inauistic Rela tivity. Ca mbridge: Ca mbridge University
Press, pp. 177-202.
Levinso n, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meaninas. Th e Th eol)' if Generalized Conversational Implicature.
Ca mbridge: MIT Press.
Luke, A. (1995). Text and discourse in education: an introduction to criti cal discourse
analysis. In: M. W Apple, ed ., Review if Research in Education 2 J. Washington: AERA, pp.
3-48.
Lynch, M. and Bogen, D. (1996). Th e Spectacle if Histol)'. Speech, Text, and Memol)' at the Ira n-
Contra Hearinas. Durham: Duke University Press.
Macdonnell, D. (1986). Th eories if Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Malone, M. J. (1997). Worlds if Talk: Th e Presentation ifSeIfin Evel)'day Conversation. Ca mbridge:
Polity Press.
MargoliS. H. (1987). Patterns, Thinki na, and Coanition. A Th eol)'ifJuda ment. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
200 Riferences
Margolis, H. (1993). Paradiams and Barriers: H ow Habi ts ifMind Govern Scientific Beliifs. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Martin, J. R., Matthiessen, c., and Painter, C. (1997) . Workina with Functional Grammar.
London: Arnold.
Michaels, S. (1981). "Sharing time:" children's narrative styles and differential access to
literacy, Lanauaae in Society 10: 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.
No r wood: 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, Qyarterly J ournal if Speech, 70: 151-67.
Mills, S. (1997) . Discourse . London: Routledge.
Minksy, M. (1985) . The Society if Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Mishler, E. G. (1990) . Validation in inquiry-guided resea rch: The role of exemplars in
narrative studies, Harvard Educational Review, 60: 415-42 .
Mishler, E. G. (1991) . Representing di sco urse: tlle rhetori c of transcription, J ournal if
Narrative and Life History, 1, 255-80.
Myers, G. (1990) . Writina Bioloay: Texts in the Social Construction if Scientific Kn owledae . Madison:
University of Wisco nsin Press.
Nolan, R. (1994). Coan itive Practices: Human Lanauaae and Human Kn owledae. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Ochs, E. (1979) . Transcription as theor y. In: E. Ochs and B. Schieffelin, eds, Developmental
Praa matics. New York: Academic Press.
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In : J. J. Gumperz and S. C.
Levinson, eds, Rethinkina Lina uistic Rela tivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp.407-37.
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., and Thompson, S. A., eds (1996). In teraction and Grammar.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ogbu, J. (2003). Black American Stu dents in an !iffIuent Su burb: A Stud'y if Academic Disenaaaement.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ong, W (1982). Orality and Literacy. Th e Technoloaiz ina if the Word. London: Methuen.
Osborne, R. and Freyberg, P. (1985). [ earnina in Science: the Implications if Children's Science.
Auckland: Heinemann.
Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a Th eory if Cultural Linau istics . Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Philipsen, G. (1975). Speaking "like a man" in Teamsterville: Culture patterns of role
enactment in an urban neighborhood, Quarterly J ournal if Speech, 61: 26-39.
Pomerantz, A. and Fehr, B. J. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of
social action as sense making practices. In: T. A. van Dijk, ed., Discourse as Social In teraction .
Discourse studies 2. a Multidisciplinary Introdu ction . London: Sage, pp. 64-91.
Propp, V (1968). Morph oloay if the Russian Folktale. Austin: University of Texas Press (originally
published 1928).
Psatllas, G. (1995). Conversation Analysis. T housa nd Oaks: Sage.
 Riferences 201
Quinn, N. (1987). Convergent evidence for a cultural model of American marriage. In:
D. Holland and N. Quinn, eds, Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 173-92.
Quirk, R. Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar if the
English Language . London: Longman.
Reich, R. B. (1992). The Work if Nations. New York: Vintage Books.
Rogers, R., ed. (2004) . An In troduction to Critical Discourse Ana!rsis in Education. Hillsdale:
La'A'Tence Erlbaum.
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., and the PDP Research Group (1986). Parallel Distributed
Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure if Cognition, Vol. I. Foundations. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W (1981). Narrative, Literacy, and Face in In terethn ic Communication.
Norwood: Ablex.
Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. (1985) . Leviathan and the Air-pump. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Shore, B. (1996). Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture, and the Problem if Meaning. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. M. and Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Ana!rsis if Discourse: The English Used by
Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition . Cambridge:
Cambridge 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.
Strauss, C. and Quinn, N. (1997). A Cognitive Theory if Cultural Meaning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E., and Schiffrin, D., eds (2003). The Handbook if Discourse Ana!rsis.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Thompson, G. (2004). In troducing Functional Grammar, 2nd edn . London: Arnold.
Toolan, M. (1996). Total Speech. an Integrational Linguistic Approach to Language. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and Lifetimes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (1985). Handbook if Discourse Ana!rsis, Vol. I: DiSciplines if Discourse. New York:
Academic Press.
van Dijk, T. A., ed. (1997a). Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourses Studies I: a MultidisciplinOl),
Introdu ction. London: Sage.
van Dijk, T. A., ed. (1997b). Discourse as Social Interaction: Discourse Studies 2: a MuftidisciplinOl),
Introdu ction. London: Sage.
van Dijk, T. A. and Kintsch, W (1980). Macrostructllres: an InterdisciplinOl), Study if Global
Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
von Frank, A. J. (1998). Th e Trial if Anthony Burns: Freedom and Slavery in Emerson's Boston.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
202 Riferences
Wieder, D. L. and Pratt, S. (1990a). On being a recognizable Indian among Indians. In:
D. Carbaugh, ed., Cultural Communication and In tercultural Contact. Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum, pp. 45-64.
Wieder, D. L. and Pratt, S. (1990b). On the occasioned and situated character of members'
questions and answers: Reflections on the question, "Is he or she a real Indian?" In:
D. Carbaugh, ed., Cultural Communication and In tercultural Contact. Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum, pp. 65-75 .
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investi8ations. Oxford: Basil BlackweU.
Wodak, R. and Meyer, M., eds (2002). Methods if Critical Discourse Ana!rsis. London: Sage.