Lesson 16. What is discourse analysis?

Discourse analysis is an approach to the analysis of written, vocal, or sign language use, or any
significant semiotic event.
The objects of discourse analysis are variously defined in terms of coherent sequences
of sentences, propositions, speech, or turns-at-talk. Contrary to much of traditional linguistics,
discourse analysts not only study language use 'beyond the sentence boundary' but also prefer to
analyze 'naturally occurring' language use, not invented examples. The essential difference
between discourse analysis and text linguistics is that discourse analysis aims at revealing socio-
psychological characteristics of a person/persons rather than text structure.
Discourse analysis is a popular primary research method in media studies, cultural studies,
education studies, and communication studies. It helps scholars to show how texts and language
have the power to shape people's perceptions of reality and, over time, shift dominant ways of
framing thought.
Discourse analysis helps researchers uncover the motivation behind a text by allowing them to
view a problem from a higher stance. It is useful for studying the underlying meaning of a
spoken or written text as it considers the social and historical contexts.
Discourse analysis is the examination of language use by members of a speech community. It
involves looking at both language form and language function and includes the study of both
spoken interaction and written texts.
Discourse analysis is a powerful tool for understanding the way language is used in
communication. It can be divided into four main types: critical discourse analysis, conversation
analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, and narrative analysis.

Discourse analysis is a way of looking at language, its structure and its use in communication. It
looks at the way language is used in a specific situation, such as a political debate, a courtroom
trial, or a social media post. It is used to study how language is used to shape and influence our
thoughts, beliefs, and actions.

Types of Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis can be divided into two main types: macro-level and micro-level. Macro-level
discourse analysis looks at the overall structure of language, such as the way it is organized into
sentences and paragraphs. Micro-level discourse analysis looks at the meaning of individual
words and phrases.

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analysis that focuses on the way
language is used to influence opinions, beliefs, and actions. It looks at how language is used to
construct and maintain power dynamics, to oppress certain groups, and to shape our
understanding of the world. CDA is often used to study how language is used in political
contexts, such as speeches, press releases, and news reports.

Conversation Analysis (CA)

Conversation analysis (CA) is a type of discourse analysis that looks at the structure and content
of conversation. It looks at the way language is used to convey meaning, to establish
relationships, and to make sense of the world. CA is often used to study how language is used in
everyday life, such as in conversations between friends, family members, and colleagues.
Interactional Sociolinguistics (IS)

Interactional sociolinguistics (IS) is a type of discourse analysis that looks at the way language is
used in social interactions. It looks at how language is used to construct identities, to negotiate
relationships, and to make sense of the world. IS is often used to study how language is used in
social contexts, such as in online forums, chat rooms, and social media posts.

Narrative Analysis (NA)

Narrative analysis (NA) is a type of discourse analysis that looks at the way language is used to
tell stories. It looks at how language is used to construct and convey meaning, to establish
relationships, and to make sense of the world. NA is often used to study how language is used in
literary texts, such as novels, poems, and plays.

What is Meant by Discourse Analysis and What to Analyze in a Written Discourse?

As McCarthy, M. (1991) summarized, when most linguists’ major concerns were still with
analyzing the structure of sentences, Zellig Harris published his paper entitled Discourse
Analysisin 1952, in which he showed interests in the linguistic elements distribution in extended
texts. Although what he studied was different from the discourse analysis studied today, more
and more scholars, either of linguistics or of other disciplines, began to involve themselves in
relevant studies. It was from all those studies in 1960s and 1970s, that that discourse analysis,
which “is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the contexts in
which it is used”(McCarthy, M. 1991P5), developed into “a wide-ranging and heterogeneous
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” (McCarthy, M.1991 P7).
Stubbs (1983) defineddiscourse analysis as a field of research, which is concerned with 1) the
use of language over the level of a sentence/utterance, 2) the interrelationships between language
and society and 3) the interactive properties of daily communication.
In addition to M.A.K. Halliday’s functional approach to language, Sinclair and Coulthard at the
University of Birmingham were as important and influential to the development of Discourse
Analysis in Britain (McCarthy, M.1991). Michael Hoey also contributed his own understanding
of discourse. He roughly summarized discourse as any stretch of spoken or written language,
longer than one sentence, which is self-contained in a reasonable way. Therefore, Hoey argued
that “discourse analysis is the area of linguistics that concerns itself with the study of these
multi-utterance acts of communication.”(Hoey, M.1991)
As Discourse Analysis covers both spoken interactions and all kinds of written and printed texts:
“newspaper articles, letters, stories, recipes, instructions, notices, comics billboards, leaflets
pushed through the door, and so on.”(McCarthy, M.1991 P12), it is impossible to talk about it in
detail in a short essay like this. This essay is merely concerned with the analysis of written
discourse.
While the spokendiscourse analysis focuses on the discussion of exchange structures and
analysis of conversations, the discourse analysis of written texts usually takes into accounts
coherence, cohesions and text patterns. According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), a text, “not just
a string of sentences”, can be either spoken or written and of any length. It is not simply a large
grammatical unit, something of the same kind as a sentence, but a semantic unit whose “texture”
is dictated by its interpretation within a particular context, or environment. Halliday and Hasan
(1976) have done much research into what makes a text a text, i.e. how we can differentiate a
cohesive grammatical unit from a random collection of sentences. Five cohesive devices have
been sorted out, namely, “reference, substitution, ellipses, conjunctions and lexical ties” (Hatch,
1992 p223).
Reference is usually established by using pronouns, demonstratives and comparatives as
cohesive ties. If subdivided, reference could be exphoric when referring to something outside the
text, or it can be endophoric, a reference within a text, referring to the person(s) or item(s) talked
about within a previous (anaphoric) and/or succeeding (cataphoric) context. This can be more
easily recognized through a grid as follows:
Figure 1: Establishment of a Reference within a Text
In contrast to reference, substitution is the replacements of an item mentioned previously. It can
be used to substitute nominal, verbal or clausal items. For example, when an itemis mentioned
for the second time, it is more likely to be replaced by one(s)or it (them)to avoid unnecessary
repetition.
Ellipses, seemingly the same as substitution, are also used to establish ties to nominals,verbals
and clauses for the sake of concision. What distinguishes ellipsis from substitution is that ellipsis
is a “zero” cohesive devices because it is not actually said or written down.
Another cohesive device, conjunction, as its name suggests, is employed to link clauses, such as
besides,yet, therefore, then, etc, by showing additive, adversative, causal, temporal or other
different kinds of conjunctive relations.
The last category of cohesive device of Halliday and Hasan’s system is the device of lexical ties.
To achieve lexical cohesion, we can use repetition, synonym, near synonym, superordinate,
general words, antonym ordered series, metonymy, members of the same lexical set or any
words from the same semantic field (Halliday and Hasan, 1976, chapter 6).
Besides grammatical and lexical cohesion, clausal relations and text patterns should also be dealt
with in written discourse analysis. Clausal relations, including logical sequence, matching or
multiple clause relations, are defined as shared cognitive processes “whereby we interpret the
meaning of a clause or group of clauses in the light of their adjoining clause or group of clauses”
(Winter 1994:p49). Text patterns are something to show the writer’s logic of organizing ideas
and his/her actual way of presenting them in a written textsince “every writer is face with the
problem of how or organize and present his/her non-linear message in comprehensible linear
form” (Coulthard, M. 1994 p7). As Hoey (1983 and 2001) summarized, text patterns fall into
categories including: a). problem-solution pattern, through which a solution is provided to a
problem raised by the writer, usually at the beginning of the text; signaled by words asissue,
problem, situation, and assessment, approaches, solution; b). goal-achievement pattern, showing
the relationship between what people set as aims and the way to realize them, with signaling
words like want to, would like to, aim, objectiveand means, method, way; c). opportunity-taking
pattern, providing chances in certain situations and how to make use of them, using signals
including opportunity, offer, unique, special, unusual, outstandingand meet, come upon, find,
read, hear, or see; d). gaping in knowledge-filling, providing concrete and exact answer to what
may be beyond people’s common sense, signaled by words such as
question,puzzle,mysteryandexplanation,hypothesis, theory, suggest, solve; e). claim-counterclaim
(response) pattern, whose signals are often words of claim, and words of denial or affirmation,
usually signaled by claim, suggest, proposeand so on; or f). Interlockingpattern, which may
combine goals-methods and problem-response in one. It is through all these “culturally popular”
text patterns that the authors present the readers cohesive, coherent, interesting, inspiring, and/or
thought-provoking written discourses.
Analysis and Discussion of Earthquake Leave Loose Material All Shook Up
After discussing the dimensions covered by written discourse analysis, I will analyze a text
entitled Earthquake Leave Loose Material All Shook Up,written by Jeff Hecht and published in
the magazine New Scientist, Volume 126, in April 1990. Through analyzing its selection of and
text patterns, I hope to make clearer my discussion about written discourse analysis conducted in
part one.
First of all, I would like to deal with the cohesive devices used in this article. As everyone can
imagine, reference is the most frequently used cohesive device in English, particularly the one
established through pronouns and demonstrative. The sample passage provided us many an
example of references realized in this way. For example, the pronoun theyin sentences3 in
paragraph I, theyin sentence 2,3 in paragraph II and theyin sentence2, 3 in paragraph III all refer
back to mounds.To be more exact, we can see themas examples of anaphoric reference as they
refer to mounds in previous senctence(s). Similarly, theyin sentence 2 of paragraph VII refers to
particles in sentence 1 while the very last word themused to refer to moundsagain. Other
reference types can also be found as word similarin sentence1 of paragraph V is an example of
comparative reference, pointing at the way that ash to clump together to form miniature mounds.
And suchin sentence 4 of paragraph VI and herein sentence 2 of paragraph VII are demonstrative
reference, referring respectively to standing waves(sentence 3, paragraph VI) and null
zones(sentence1, paragraph 7). Interestingly, there is one more such example, as thisin the
second sentence below the illustration referring to what is mentioned in previous sentence.
Besides, the author also used ellipses in the article, as can be seen in Charles Higgins of the
university of California at Davis says: “I don’t think …it explains …that many published
hypotheses don’t”sentence 2 of paragraphVIII---the verb explainsis omitted after don’t. In
addition, in sentence 2 of paragraph IX, others, is an example of substitution, taking the place of
mounds. All the butin sentence 4 of paragraph III, in sentence 3 of paragraph V and in the very
last sentence of the passage are examples of conjunction. Other examples are, whilein sentence 2
of paragraph IV, whenin sentence 5 in paragraph V, and howeverin sentence 2 of paragraph IX.
Furthermore, many examples of lexical cohesions can be found throughout the passage. For
instance, moundsare simply repeated so many times all through the article while hillockused as
its synonymy in paragraph I. In paragraph II and III, words with similar meanings like forming,
existence, built, and result fromhelp realize lexical cohesion in talking about the origin of
mounds. And From paragraph VI through IX, the author employed general words like places
zonesand areasto achieve cohesion in lexis when talking about the sites where mounds can be
found.
In addition to analyzing cohesive devices, clausal relations and text patterns of a higher textual
level are to be analyzed in turn. Good writers need take into account the readers when they write
(Koester, 2002 personal communication). Such a principle makes it very important for us to pay
some attention to aspect. As mentioned in part one of this essay, clausal relations include logical
sequence, matching or multiple clause relations. When it comes to this aspect, lexical cohesion
device of conjunctions also play a rather important role and should be mentioned once again,
because logical sequence relations are always signaled by conjunctions, though they do not have
to be (Koester, 2002 personal communication). It is a shame that in the case of the analyzed text,
we can only observe conjunctions like butand howeverare used to show contrast clausal relation,
one type of matching relations between clauses.
Fortunately, this passage, as a piece of scientific writing, is a good example of claim-
counterclaim (response) pattern of text, by the hint of signaling words like believein sentence 2
and suggestsin sentence 3 of paragraph I, proposedin sentence 1, claimin sentence 2 of paragraph
II and many others. According to Hoey (2001), claim-counterclaim (response) pattern, also
known as hypothetical-real pattern (Winter, 1994), which can be illustrated as shown in figure 2:
The general pattern structure of the cited passage, therefore, can be analyzed as:
Situation: Mysterious Origin of Mima Mounds
Claim: the vibration of earthquakes might cause Mima Mounds, made by Andrew Berg
Reasons for claim:
 his incidental experience of seeing the effect of vibration, (paragraph IV)
 no any similar previoussuggestions by other geologists (paragraph V)
 hypothesis about the effect of seismic waves caused by earthquake (paragraph VI)

Affirm and Reason for it:

 many mounds are in earthquake zones (sentence 1, paragraph IX)
 explained aspects failed to be mentioned by other hypothesis (sentence 2 in paragraph VIII)

Denial / Negative Evaluation:

 no quantitative model of this phenomenon (sentence 2, paragraph VII)
 not predictable amount of energy to be needed (sentence 3, paragraph VII)
 other geologists’ support of gopher theory
Counter Claim(s):
 gopher theory (paragraph III)
 product of selective erosion of soil (paragraph III)
 effect of glacial deposition (paragraph III)
 accumulations of soil around roots of plants (paragraph III)
As there is not yet an agreement reached among all the geologists, this article does not provide
any correction to the claim and therefore the reason for correction is also missing.
Therefore, if the relevant information of this passage is added, the pattern shown in Figure 2can
be modified as follows. The words in double-line-edged grids attached to each item are listed as
the explanationshown in Figure 3:
Figure 3: Modification of Claim-counterclaim Patterns

As different readers may interpret the text patterns from various angles, Berg’s claim could be
analyzed as counterclaim against other geologists’ suggestions if theirs are regarded as claims. It
can also be argued that, if the origin of moundsis analyzed as a question raised by the author, all
the claims of Berg or other geologists can be analyzed as possible solutions. Then the text pattern
of the sample passage will fall into to another category, the problem-solution pattern, “arguably
the most common pattern of all” (Hoey, 2001 p123). But just as Hoey (2001) argued, sometimes
it is not necessary to distinguish whether a certain passage has this or that pattern since “clearly
all the patterns we have been considering have much in common”(p166). They can all be
summarized as SPRE (situation, problem, response and evaluation) pattern, and the part of
problem, in many circumstances can also be the part of goal, opportunity, desire arousal, gap in
knowledge, which triggers different responses, which then in turn lead to a negative evaluation
to recycle the pattern and finally a positive evaluation to end the pattern.