DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

The term ‘discourse analysis’ was first used by the sentence linguist, Zellig Harris in his 1952

article entitled ‘Discourse Analysis’. According to him, discourse analysis is a method for the

analysis of connected speech or writing, for continuing descriptive linguistics beyond the limit of

a simple sentence at a time (Harris 1952). Meanwhile, scholars have attested to the difficulty in

coming up with a comprehensive and acceptable definition for discourse analysis. However, a way

to simplify the attempt to define discourse analysis is to say that discourse analysis is ‘the analysis

of discourse’. The next question, therefore, would be ‘what is discourse?’

Discourse can simply be seen as language in use (Brown & Yule 1983; Cook 1989). It, therefore,

follows that discourse analysis is the analysis of language in use. By ‘language in use’, we mean

the set of norms, preferences, and expectations which relate language to context. Discourse

analysis can also be seen as the organization of language above the sentence level. The concern of

discourse analysis is not restricted to the study of formal properties of language; it also takes into

consideration what language is used for in social and cultural contexts.

Discourse analysis, therefore, studies the relationship between language (written, spoken –

conversation, institutionalized forms of talk) and the contexts in which it is used. What matters is

that the text is felt to be coherent. Guy Cook (1989:6i-7) describes discourse as language in use or

language used to communicate something felt to be coherent which may, or may not correspond

to a correct sentence or series of correct sentences. Discourse analysis, therefore, according to him,

is the search for what gives discourse coherence. He posits that discourse does not have to be

grammatically correct, can be anything from a grunt or simple expletive, through short

conversations and scribbled notes, a novel or a lengthy legal case.

the organization of language and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational

exchanges or written text.’ Again, we affirm that what matters in the study of discourse, whether

as language in use or as language beyond the clause, is that language is organized in a coherent

manner such that it communicates something to its receivers.

Discourse Analysis seeks patterns in linguistic data. Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) is one

of the patterns.

THE BACKGROUND TO SYSTEMATIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS (SFL) AS A

SFL is an approach to language developed largely by M.A.K. Halliday and his followers during

the 1960s in the United Kingdom, and later in Australia (O’Donnell 2012, p. 1). SFL is built on

previous works of some influential linguists such as Bronislaw Malinowski and J.R. Firth.

Bronislaw Malinowski was a polish anthropologist who did most of his works based in England

(O’Donnell 2012, p. 5). The second linguist is J.R. Firth who established linguistics as a discipline

in Britain. He developed Malinowski's theory about the centrality of the context of the situation

and applied it through his linguistic model. In addition, he developed an approach to phonology

called 'prosodic phonology', which enables phonological features to be shared over successive

phonemes rather than each phoneme having its unique features (O’Donnell 2012, p. 6).

Nowadays, the SFL approach is used worldwide, especially in language education, and for several

purposes like Discourse Analysis (DA). It has continued to be closely associated with sociology

even when a good number of linguistic theories deal with language in the form of mental practice.

Halliday's tradition, as an illustration, is more interested in the manner by which language is

utilized in social settings to attain a specific target (O’Donnell, 2012, p. 2). SFL, with regards to
data, does not tackle the manner of language representation or process in the human brain, but

would rather try to see discourses produced in the form of written or oral language and what is

contained in the tests that are produced. Because of the concern of SFL with the use of language,

great importance is placed on the function of language, such as what language is used for, rather

than what language structure is all about and how it is composed (Matthiessen & Halliday, 1997).

DEFINITIONS OF SFL

Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is a theory of language centered around the notion of

language function. While SFL accounts for the syntactic structure of language, it places the

function of language as central (what language does, and how it does it), in preference to more

structural approaches, which place the elements of language and their combinations as central.

SFL starts with social context and looks at how language both acts upon and is constrained by this

social context.

In SFL, a text is analyzed in four ways. They are as follows:

i. Context

ii. Semantics

iii. Lexico-grammar

iv. Phonology.
Context: Context is classified as one of the central concerns because it is integral to the overall

process of making meaning. When language occurs in a context, it will relate to or is linked to

several contexts (Matthiessen & Halliday 1997). They are:

• Field: gives us an indication of the topic or what is being talked about.

These three Register variables are used to explain people's intuitive understanding that individuals

use different resources, different kinds, and different parts of the system of language (Matthiessen

& Halliday 1997).

Inside the language itself, the SFL describes a model with three levels as a tristratal model of

language. They are as follows:

Discourse-Semantics has three metafunctions. They are:

1. Interpersonal metafunctions,

2. Ideational metafunctions, and

3. Textual metafunctions.

Interpersonal metafunctions: The Interpersonal Metafunction of a speech represents the way the

addresser and the audience interact, the use of language to establish and maintain relations with

them, to influence their behavior, to express our viewpoint on things in the world, and to elicit or

change theirs.

Ideational metafunction: The ideational metafunction organizes the resources we use when we

construe our experience of both the inner (mental) and the external (social and physical) world.
The ideational metafunction is concerned with the content of language or any other mode, its

function as a means of the expression of our experience, both of the external world and of the inner

world of our own consciousness – together with what is perhaps a separate sub-component

expressing certain basic logical relations (Halliday 1973: 66).

Textual metafunction: Textual metafunction encompasses all of the grammatical systems

responsible for managing the flow of discourse. These systems "create coherent text – text that

coheres within itself and with the context of situation. They are both structural (involving choices

relating to the ordering of elements in the clause), and non-structural (involving choices that create

cohesive ties between units that have no structural bond). The relevant grammatical systems

include Theme, Given, and New, as well as the systems of cohesion, such as Reference,

Substitution, and Ellipsis. Through the textual function, language "creates a semiotic world of its

own: a parallel universe, or ‘virtual reality’ in modern terms.

THE CONCEPT OF COHESION AND COHERENCE

Cohesive devices and coherence are important discourse or linguistic strategies employed to

enable the audience to understand discourse and interpret it appropriately and make sense of it. It

is in the textual function of discourse that cohesive devices are projected. They are two major

concepts that are central to discourse analysis. Cohesion is the ties and connection between

statements. It is achieved through cohesive words such as references, substitution, comparison,

and repetition. Coherence has to do with the interpretation of the text according to the place and

situation, or the social context in which it is used.

Halliday and Hassan assert that the concept of cohesion is a semantic one. It refers to relations of

meaning that exist within the text and that define the text. Cohesion refers to the range of
possibilities that exist for linking something with what has gone before. Cohesion works within

the text to enhance the meaning-making process which ultimately contributes to the interpretation

of the discourse. The following five categories have been identified: -Reference, -Substitution, -

Ellipsis, -Conjunction, and -Lexical Cohesion. It is the interaction of these cohesive ties within a

particular text that enables a speaker to make sense of and communicate meaning.

Reference

Reference which is a very common cohesive device refers to a set of words such as ‘he’, and ’we’,

and that point backward or forwards to another item(s) in the same text. As a cohesive marker,

they help to establish semantic relations between various messages in texts. Salkie differentiates

‘text reference’ from ‘situation reference’. When reference words refer to surrounding text, they

are called text references. While words that refer to the real world of the text are known as situation

references. The use of referential items helps to demonstrate how they serve as cohesive markers

and contribute to the unity of texts. An anaphoric is a referential item that points back to its

antecedent. These include we, I, us, they, it, you, me, its, etc. Cataphoric is another way speakers

and writers establish semantic relations within the text. It is a referential item that is retrievable

forward of the text. These include you, them, him, etc. The use of referential items whose meaning

or referents are located outside the text is known as an exophoric reference. The use of pronouns

such as we, I, ours, my, etc. are examples of exophoric referential items.

Substitution

This is the use of some special words such as ‘one’, ‘do’, and ‘so’ to replace words that have

already been used in the text. It contributes to the semantic structure of the discourse. It also helps

to achieve another form of anaphoric cohesion in texts.

Ellipsis means leaving out a word or phrase or deleting some items from the structure of the text.

Ellipses are used not only as part of cohesive markers but also to achieve economy, and to establish

a personal conversational form between the addresser and addressee so that familiarity and rapport

are created.

Conjunction

Conjunctions are words and phrases that are used to indicate a specific link between different parts

of a text. It is an important cohesion feature that makes a piece of discourse ‘discourse textural’.

In texts, clauses and sentences are joined together through various types of connectives which

include, additive connector-and, adversative conjunction-but, connective of inference-if, etc.

Lexical Cohesion

This includes word repetition, synonyms, and superordinate terms. Lexical cohesion is achieved

in the text through the repetition of some items within the text. Reiteration is a device of stating

words or phrases repeatedly in the same or different form.