Chapter 1: Introduction to Discourse Studies

1.1 What is Discourse?

Discourse is more than just a sequence of words or sentences; it is language in use,

shaped by context, meaning, and social interaction. It involves written, spoken, and
even non-verbal communication, forming the foundation of human interaction.

Key Definitions:

Michel Foucault (1972): “Discourse is a system of thoughts, composed of ideas,

attitudes, and practices, that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of
which they speak.”

Teun A. van Dijk (1997): “Discourse is a form of language use that is beyond the
sentence level, encompassing meanings, functions, and social structures.”

Example 1: Spoken Discourse

Casual conversation:
Person A: “Hey, how’s it going?”

Person B: “Not bad, just busy with work.”

Here, meaning is derived not only from words but also from tone, context, and shared
understanding.
Example 2: Written Discourse

News headline: “Global leaders meet to discuss climate action.”

This short sentence conveys a broad social and political meaning beyond the words
themselves.

---

1.2 Importance of Discourse Studies

Discourse studies provide tools to analyze communication in various contexts, helping

us understand:

1. How language constructs reality (e.g., political speeches shape public opinion).

2. How power and ideology operate in discourse (e.g., media discourse influencing
perceptions).

3. How meaning is negotiated in interactions (e.g., doctor-patient conversations).

Example: Political Speech Analysis

Speech by a leader: “We must protect our nation from external threats.”

A discourse analyst might examine:

The use of "we" (inclusive but also divisive).

The framing of "external threats" (who is being positioned as a danger?).

---

1.3 Discourse vs. Text vs. Conversation

---

1.4 Levels of Discourse Analysis

1. Micro-level (linguistic features): Examining words, phrases, grammar.

Example: The difference between “I demand an answer” and “Could you please clarify?”
shows variation in politeness.
2. Meso-level (interactional features): Studying conversation structure, turn-taking, and
power dynamics.

Example: In interviews, the interviewer typically controls the flow of questions.

3. Macro-level (social and ideological context): Understanding how discourse shapes

and is shaped by society.

Example: Media portrayal of protests can frame them as either “peaceful

demonstrations” or “violent riots.”

---

1.5 Solved Activity: Identifying Discourse Features

Task: Read the following statement and identify discourse elements:

"The government has taken great steps to improve the economy, but some critics argue
that inflation remains high."

Analysis:
Power and Authority: "The government" is positioned as the main actor.

Contrast & Persuasion: "But" introduces an opposing view.

Ideology: The phrase "great steps" suggests a positive evaluation, while "inflation
remains high" introduces a counter-argument.

---

1.6 Key Theorists and Books for Further Reading

1. Teun A. van Dijk (1997). Discourse as Structure and Process.

Covers how discourse constructs meaning in different social settings.

2. Norman Fairclough (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis.

Explores the relationship between language, power, and society.

3. Deborah Tannen (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in

Conversational Discourse.
Discusses how spoken discourse shapes meaning through repetition and style.

4. Michel Foucault (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge.

Explores how discourse structures knowledge and social reality.

---

1.7 Conclusion

This chapter introduced discourse as a key area of linguistic and social analysis,
distinguishing it from text and conversation. We explored how language shapes
meaning, power, and ideology at different levels of analysis. In the next chapter, we will
examine different discourse analysis approaches, including structural, functional, and
critical discourse analysis.

Would you like any modifications or additional sections?

Module 2: Discourse Structure and Patterns

Discourse structure and patterns refer to the ways in which language is organized to
create meaning, maintain coherence, and facilitate effective communication. This
module explores how different linguistic and textual elements contribute to the structure
of discourse.

The first key concept in this module is Cohesion and Coherence in Discourse, which
deals with how texts achieve connectedness and meaning.

---

Cohesion and Coherence in Discourse

1. Introduction to Cohesion and Coherence

Discourse is not just a collection of sentences; it must be connected and meaningful.

Two fundamental aspects that ensure this are:

1. Cohesion – The linguistic elements that create grammatical and lexical connections
between parts of a text.

2. Coherence – The logical and meaningful relationships between ideas in a text.

These two concepts ensure that discourse is both structurally connected and
intellectually meaningful.

---

2. Cohesion in Discourse

Cohesion refers to the explicit linguistic ties that connect sentences and paragraphs.
M.A.K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan (1976) introduced cohesion as a key feature of
textuality in their book Cohesion in English.

2.1 Types of Cohesion

A. Grammatical Cohesion

1. Reference – Using pronouns or determiners to point to something within the text.

Example:

"Ali bought a book. He is reading it now." (He refers to Ali, and it refers to the book.)

2. Substitution – Replacing a word with another to avoid repetition.

Example:
"I wanted a red pen, but they only had a blue one." (One substitutes for pen.)

3. Ellipsis – Omitting words that are understood from the context.

Example:

A: "Will you go to the party?"

B: "I might." (Ellipsis of "go to the party.")

4. Conjunctions – Linking ideas with cohesive devices.

Types:

Additive: and, moreover, in addition

Adversative: but, however, yet

Causal: because, therefore, so

Temporal: then, later, afterwards

Example:

"She was tired; however, she continued working."

---

B. Lexical Cohesion

Lexical cohesion is based on word choice and semantic relationships.

1. Repetition – Repeating key words for emphasis.

Example:

"Climate change is a global problem. Addressing climate change requires international

cooperation."
2. Synonymy – Using synonyms to avoid repetition while maintaining connection.

Example:

"The actor gave a great performance. The performer was praised by critics."

3. Antonymy – Using opposite words to highlight contrast.

Example:

"The weather was hot during the day but cold at night."

4. Collocation – Words that naturally occur together in a language.

Example:

"Fast food" (instead of "quick food").

"Heavy rain" (instead of "strong rain").

5. Hyponymy – Using category relationships (superordinate-subordinate).

Example:

"There are many fruits in the basket, including apples, bananas, and oranges." (Fruits is
the superordinate term.)

---

3. Coherence in Discourse

Coherence refers to the logical flow and conceptual unity of a text. Even if a text is
grammatically cohesive, it may not be coherent if the ideas are disorganized.

3.1 Factors Affecting Coherence

1. Logical Order – Arranging ideas in a sequence that makes sense.

Example (Chronological coherence):

"First, mix the flour and eggs. Then, add milk. Finally, bake for 30 minutes."

2. Relevance – Ensuring all sentences contribute to the main idea.

Example:

"She enjoys gardening. Her favorite plants are roses and tulips."

(If the second sentence were "She also likes ice cream," coherence would break.)

3. Consistency in Topic – Maintaining a clear theme throughout the discourse.

Example:

A news article about climate change should not suddenly shift to discussing sports.

4. Inference and Implicature – The ability of readers to understand unstated

connections.
Example (Implicature in conversation):

A: "Can you lend me some money?"

B: "I just paid my rent." (Implies "I don’t have extra money" without stating it explicitly.)

---

4. Cohesion vs. Coherence: Key Differences

Example of a Cohesive but Incoherent Text:

"The sun is shining. Dogs are barking. Water is wet. I like ice cream."

(The sentences have correct grammar and cohesion, but no meaningful connection.)

Example of a Coherent but Less Cohesive Text:

"A man was sitting under a tree. He looked at the sky and smiled. It was a warm
afternoon."
(There is a logical flow, but few explicit cohesive devices.)

---

5. Conclusion

Cohesion and coherence are essential for effective discourse. Cohesion ensures
structural connection through grammatical and lexical devices, while coherence ensures
logical unity and meaningfulness. A well-formed text requires both.

---

Key References

Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational

Discourse. Cambridge University Press.

Gee, J.P. (2014). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Routledge.
Chapter 3: Discourse and Cognition

Introduction

This chapter explores the connection between discourse and cognition, emphasizing
how mental processes shape our understanding of language. Van Dijk (2008) argues
that discourse comprehension involves both linguistic competence (syntax, grammar)
and cognitive structures (memory, mental models, and knowledge schemas).

Cognition allows individuals to process, interpret, and produce discourse based on prior
knowledge, contextual understanding, and social experiences.

---

1. The Role of Cognition in Discourse

Cognition influences how we interpret meaning and construct discourse. Key

components include:

Memory (storing prior knowledge for discourse processing)

Perception (interpreting meaning based on mental representations)

Conceptual Knowledge (understanding abstract relationships in discourse)

Literary Example: Macbeth (Shakespeare)

When Macbeth sees Banquo’s ghost, his mental state and guilt shape his perception of
reality. While Lady Macbeth dismisses it, Macbeth’s cognition constructs a terrifying
discourse of paranoia and supernatural fear. This aligns with van Dijk’s (2008) claim that
discourse interpretation is affected by individual cognitive states.

---

2. Mental Models and Discourse Processing

Van Dijk (2009) introduces the concept of mental models, cognitive structures that help
individuals interpret discourse by forming representations of events and situations.

Situation Models: Readers create mental images based on textual details.

Context Models: Social and cultural contexts influence how discourse is understood.

Literary Example: Pride and Prejudice (Jane Austen)

Elizabeth Bennet initially constructs a negative mental model of Mr. Darcy based on his
aloof behavior. However, as she gains more context, her cognitive representation of him
changes, demonstrating how mental models evolve through discourse (van Dijk, 2009).

---
3. Memory and Discourse Understanding

Memory plays a crucial role in discourse processing. Van Dijk (1997) distinguishes
between:

Short-Term Memory (STM): Holds immediate linguistic information.

Long-Term Memory (LTM): Stores general world knowledge.

Episodic Memory: Shapes discourse interpretation based on personal experience.

Literary Example: The Great Gatsby (F. Scott Fitzgerald)

Nick Carraway’s narration is shaped by his episodic memory. His personal recollections
influence how he frames Gatsby’s story, illustrating van Dijk’s (1997) claim that
discourse comprehension depends on stored experiences.

---

4. Macrostructures and Microstructures in Cognition

Discourse operates at two levels:

1. Microstructures: Sentence-level meaning, word choice, syntax.

2. Macrostructures: Overall themes, coherence, and discourse organization.

Literary Example: Hamlet (Shakespeare)

Microstructure: Hamlet’s soliloquy “To be or not to be” contains rhetorical structures that
reflect his inner turmoil.

Macrostructure: The overarching discourse of the play revolves around revenge,

madness, and existential uncertainty.

Van Dijk (1997) argues that discourse comprehension involves recognizing both micro-
level language structures and macro-level themes.

---

5. Schema Theory and Script Knowledge

Schemas are mental frameworks that shape discourse comprehension, while scripts
provide expected sequences of actions in familiar situations (van Dijk, 2008).

Schemas help us predict meaning in discourse.

Scripts guide our expectations in conversations and narratives.

Literary Example: Oliver Twist (Charles Dickens)

Readers rely on the "orphan narrative schema" to predict Oliver’s struggles. However,
the narrative subverts expectations when Oliver finds unexpected kindness, requiring
the reader to reconstruct their mental model (van Dijk, 2008).

---

6. Implications for Discourse Analysis

Cognitive processes shape how we interpret, remember, and produce discourse.

Prior knowledge and context models influence comprehension.

Both linguistic structures and cognitive mechanisms must be analyzed for a full
understanding of discourse.

Literary Example: Animal Farm (George Orwell)

A reader unfamiliar with the Russian Revolution may interpret the novel as a simple
fable. However, those with historical knowledge apply a political schema, recognizing its
ideological critique—illustrating van Dijk’s (2009) argument that discourse
comprehension depends on background knowledge.
---

Conclusion

Discourse is both a linguistic structure and a cognitive process. Understanding mental

models, memory, schemas, and social cognition allows for a deeper analysis of how
language is produced and interpreted. Van Dijk’s theories highlight the importance of
context, prior knowledge, and cognitive structures in discourse processing.

---

References

van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as social interaction. SAGE.

van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge

University Press.

van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and
talk. Cambridge University Press
Chapter 4: Discourse and Society

Introduction

This chapter explores the relationship between discourse and society, emphasizing how
language reflects and shapes social structures, power dynamics, ideologies, and
cultural norms. According to van Dijk (1997), discourse is a social practice that both
influences and is influenced by societal structures. It serves as a medium for social
interaction, identity construction, and ideological representation.

1. The Social Nature of Discourse

Discourse is inherently social, shaped by contextual factors such as:

Social roles and identities (e.g., discourse varies based on authority, gender, and
ethnicity).

Cultural norms and conventions (e.g., politeness strategies differ across cultures).

Power structures (e.g., how dominant groups control discourse to maintain hegemony).

Van Dijk (2008) argues that discourse functions within social cognition, meaning that
people interpret texts based on shared cultural and ideological frameworks.

Literary Example: To Kill a Mockingbird (Harper Lee)

Atticus Finch’s courtroom speech disrupts the dominant racial discourse of his society.
His defense of Tom Robinson highlights the power of discourse in challenging systemic
bias, while the prosecution’s arguments reflect institutionalized racism—a key theme in
van Dijk’s analysis of power and ideology in discourse (van Dijk, 1993).

2. Discourse and Power

Van Dijk (1993) emphasizes that power is exercised and maintained through discourse,
particularly in:

Political and legal discourse (e.g., laws, policies, propaganda).

Media discourse (e.g., biased news framing, agenda-setting).

Institutional discourse (e.g., corporate policies, academic discourse).

Literary Example: 1984 (George Orwell)

Orwell’s concept of Newspeak demonstrates how language is used to restrict thought

and reinforce power—a prime example of van Dijk’s theory of elite discourse control
(van Dijk, 1996). The Party manipulates discourse to eliminate rebellious ideas,
reflecting how dominant institutions shape public perception through language.

3. Ideology and Discourse

Van Dijk (1998) defines ideology as a shared system of beliefs that influences
discourse. He highlights three key aspects:

Dominant ideologies shape discourse norms (e.g., gender roles, nationalism).

Language encodes implicit ideological meanings (e.g., metaphors, euphemisms).

Discourse can either reinforce or resist ideologies.

Literary Example: Jane Eyre (Charlotte Brontë)

Jane’s rejection of Mr. Rochester’s patriarchal discourse reflects her ideological

resistance. Her insistence on equality aligns with van Dijk’s view that discourse can
challenge ideological dominance (van Dijk, 1998).

---

4. Social Context and Discourse Interpretation

The interpretation of discourse varies based on social backgrounds, experiences, and

group identities. According to van Dijk (2009), context models play a critical role in
discourse processing:

People adjust their discourse based on setting and audience.

In-group and out-group discourse influence how language is perceived.

Literary Example: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Mark Twain)

Huck’s shifting language use demonstrates context-dependent discourse. His speech

patterns change when interacting with Jim (informal, empathetic) versus formal settings,
illustrating how discourse is socially constructed—a key theme in van Dijk’s theory of
context models (van Dijk, 2009).
5. Discourse and Social Change
Discourse is a key driver of social transformation. Van Dijk (2015) argues that:

Language can be used to resist oppression (e.g., political speeches, literature).

Social movements create new discourses to challenge dominant ideologies.

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) uncovers power relations in language use.

Literary Example: The Color Purple (Alice Walker)

Celie’s transformation from silence to self-expression represents discourse as

empowerment. Her letters symbolize resistance to oppression, aligning with van Dijk’s
argument that discourse plays a crucial role in identity formation and social resistance
(van Dijk, 2015).

Conclusion

Discourse is not just a means of communication—it is a tool of social power, ideology,

and transformation. Van Dijk’s theories provide a framework for analyzing how
discourse maintains or disrupts societal hierarchies. Literature, like real-world discourse,
reflects these power structures and challenges them through language and narrative
strategies.

References

van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Elite discourse and racism. SAGE.

van Dijk, T. A. (1996). Discourse, power and access. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M.
Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 84–
104). Routledge.

van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as social interaction. SAGE.

van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. SAGE.

van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge

University Press.

van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and
talk. Cambridge University Press.

van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambrid

Conversation Analysis and Turn-Taking

1. Introduction to Conversation Analysis (CA)

Conversation Analysis (CA) is a method of studying spoken interaction in real-life

settings. Developed in the 1960s by Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail
Jefferson, CA examines how participants manage conversation structure, interpret
meaning, and establish social relationships through talk.

A key aspect of CA is turn-taking, which governs how speakers alternate in dialogue to

maintain smooth communication.

---

2. Principles of Conversation Analysis

2.1 Sequential Organization

Conversations follow a structured sequence, where each turn relates to the previous
one.

Example (General):

A: "What time is the meeting?"

B: "At 3 PM." (Answer is expected and relevant.)

Example (Literary Work – Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen):

Elizabeth: "Are you so severe upon your own sex?"

Mr. Darcy: "I have been used to consider poetry as the food of love."

(Elizabeth's question expects a direct reply, but Darcy’s response shifts the topic,
creating conversational tension.)

---

2.2 Adjacency Pairs

Adjacency pairs are two-part exchanges where the first turn sets up an expected
second turn.

Common Types:

1. Question-Answer

A: "How are you?"

B: "I’m fine, thanks."

2. Greeting-Greeting

A: "Good morning!"

B: "Morning!"

3. Request-Grant/Refusal

A: "Can you help me with this?"

B: "Sure!" or "Sorry, I’m busy."

Example (Literary Work – Hamlet by Shakespeare):

Hamlet: "To be, or not to be?"

Ophelia (later in conversation): "My lord, I have remembrances of yours."

(Hamlet’s existential question is left unanswered, showing a disrupted adjacency pair

that reflects his inner conflict.)
---

3. Turn-Taking in Conversation

3.1 The Turn-Taking Mechanism

In natural conversation, speakers take turns smoothly using cues. Sacks, Schegloff, and
Jefferson (1974) outlined three main rules for turn allocation:

1. Current speaker selects the next speaker

Example: "Ali, what do you think?" (Ali is expected to speak next.)

2. Self-selection (If no one is nominated, someone volunteers.)

Example: In a meeting, when silence follows a question, one participant may step in.

3. Speaker continuation (If no one else speaks, the current speaker continues.)
Example (Literary Work – Great Expectations by Charles Dickens):

Miss Havisham: "You are not afraid of a woman who has never seen the sun since you
were born?"

Pip: "No."

(Miss Havisham selects Pip to respond, following the turn-taking rule.)

---

3.2 Overlaps and Interruptions

Sometimes, speakers overlap or interrupt, leading to competition for the floor.

Overlap – When two speakers talk at the same time.

Example:

A: "I think we should—"

B: "No, let’s try another way."

Interruption – When a speaker deliberately cuts off another.

Example:

A: "Let me explain—"

B: "There’s no need!"

Example (Literary Work – The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde):

Lady Bracknell: "To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to
lose both looks like carelessness."

Jack: "I—"

Lady Bracknell: "You can hardly imagine that I and Lord Bracknell would dream of
allowing our only daughter—"

(Lady Bracknell interrupts, asserting dominance in the conversation.)

---

4. Repairs in Conversation

When a conversation breaks down, speakers use repair strategies to fix

misunderstandings.

Types of Repairs

1. Self-repair – The speaker corrects their own mistake.

Example: "I met her on—uh, I mean, last Friday."

2. Other-repair – Another speaker corrects the mistake.

Example:

A: "We went to Italy last year in May."

B: "Wasn’t it June?"

3. Repetition for clarification – Asking to confirm information.

Example: "You said the meeting is at three or three-thirty?"

Example (Literary Work – Macbeth by Shakespeare):

Macbeth: "Is this a dagger which I see before me?"

(Macbeth uses self-repair, questioning his own vision.)

---

5. Conclusion

Conversation Analysis helps us understand the structured yet flexible nature of spoken
discourse. Turn-taking, adjacency pairs, interruptions, and repairs contribute to the flow
of conversation, shaping social interactions.

---

Key References
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the
Organization of Turn-Taking in Conversation.

Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.

Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men at Work. William Morrow.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Polity Press.

Theoretical Foundations of Discourse

1. Introduction to Theoretical Foundations of Discourse

Discourse studies have evolved through various theoretical perspectives that explain
how language functions beyond isolated sentences. These perspectives include
structuralist, functional, pragmatic, and critical approaches, each offering insights into
the relationship between language, meaning, and society.

This chapter explores the foundational theories in discourse studies, drawing from key
linguists such as Saussure, Jakobson, Austin, Searle, Foucault, and Fairclough, with
examples to illustrate each concept.

---

2. Structuralist Approach to Discourse

2.1 Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913) and Structuralism

Saussure, in his seminal work Course in General Linguistics (1916), laid the foundation
for structuralist linguistics. His sign theory introduced key distinctions:

Langue vs. Parole:

Langue (language system): The abstract structure of a language shared by a

community.

Parole (speech): The actual use of language in context.

Example: In English, the grammar rules governing past tense (-ed) belong to langue,
whereas someone saying, "I walked to school yesterday," is an example of parole.

Signifier and Signified:

Signifier: The sound or written form of a word.

Signified: The concept or meaning behind the word.

Example: The word "tree" (signifier) represents the concept of a tall plant with leaves
(signified). However, in French, "arbre" is the signifier for the same concept, showing
that language is arbitrary.

Saussure's ideas influenced discourse analysis by emphasizing the systematic structure

of language rather than individual expressions.

---

2.2 Roman Jakobson (1896–1982) and the Communicative Functions of Language

Jakobson expanded Saussure’s ideas and proposed six functions of language in

communication (Linguistics and Poetics, 1960). These functions help analyze discourse
beyond mere sentence structure.
1. Referential Function – Language used to convey information.

Example: "The sun sets in the west." (Provides factual information)

2. Emotive Function – Expresses the speaker's emotions or attitude.

Example: "Wow! This food is amazing!" (Conveys excitement)

3. Conative Function – Influences or commands the listener.

Example: "Close the door, please." (A directive statement)

4. Phatic Function – Maintains social interaction.

Example: "How are you?" (Used to initiate conversation)

5. Metalinguistic Function – Discusses language itself.

Example: "What does ‘ironic’ mean?" (Talking about language)

6. Poetic Function – Focuses on the aesthetic quality of language.

Example: "She sells sea shells by the sea shore." (Alliteration)

Jakobson’s model is useful in discourse analysis, particularly in identifying the intent

behind different types of communication.

---

3. Functional and Pragmatic Approaches to Discourse

3.1 Speech Act Theory – J.L. Austin (1911–1960) and John Searle (b. 1932)

Speech Act Theory, developed by J.L. Austin in How to Do Things with Words (1962)
and expanded by John Searle, argues that language is not just descriptive but also
performative—it does things.

Austin introduced three types of speech acts:

1. Locutionary Act – The literal meaning of an utterance.

Example: "It is raining." (A factual statement about the weather)

2. Illocutionary Act – The intended meaning or force behind the statement.

Example: "Can you pass the salt?" (Not just a question but a request)

3. Perlocutionary Act – The effect the utterance has on the listener.

Example: If someone hears "Fire!" in a crowded theater, they might panic and run.

Searle further categorized illocutionary acts into representatives, directives,

commissives, expressives, and declarations, which are essential in discourse analysis,
particularly in legal and political discourse.

---

3.2 Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Conversational Implicature

Paul Grice (Logic and Conversation, 1975) proposed that speakers follow a cooperative
principle to ensure effective communication. He introduced four maxims:
1. Maxim of Quantity – Be as informative as required.

Example:

A: "Where is Ali?"

B: "He is in the library." (Sufficient information)

If B said, "He is in the library, wearing a red shirt, sitting on the third chair from the left,"
it would violate this maxim.

2. Maxim of Quality – Be truthful.

Example: "Water boils at 100°C" (True statement).

3. Maxim of Relation – Be relevant.

Example:

A: "How was the movie?"

B: "I fell asleep." (Implies the movie was boring)

4. Maxim of Manner – Be clear and orderly.

Example: Saying "A man was hit by a car" (clear) instead of "A car was used to hit a
man" (vague).

When speakers flout these maxims, implicature arises. For example, if a student asks,
"Did you like my essay?" and the teacher responds, "Well, you used a lot of words," it
implies criticism without direct negativity.

---

4. Critical Approaches to Discourse

4.1 Michel Foucault (1926–1984) – Discourse and Power

Foucault (The Archaeology of Knowledge, 1969) argued that discourse is not just about
language but also about power and knowledge. His key ideas include:

Discursive Formations – Language constructs reality rather than just describing it.
Example: The way mental illness is discussed (as "madness" in the past vs. "disorder"
today) shapes how society perceives it.

Power-Knowledge Relationship – Those who control discourse control society.

Example: In political discourse, terms like "terrorist" vs. "freedom fighter" reflect
ideological bias.

---

4.2 Norman Fairclough (b. 1941) – Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

Fairclough (Language and Power, 1989) expanded on Foucault’s ideas and developed
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), which studies how discourse maintains power
structures.

His Three-Dimensional Model analyzes:

1. Text (Micro-Level) – Language features (word choice, grammar).

2. Discursive Practice (Meso-Level) – How language is produced and interpreted.

3. Social Practice (Macro-Level) – How discourse shapes society.

Example: In media discourse, headlines like "Migrants flood the country" vs. "Refugees
seek safety" show ideological framing.

---

5. Conclusion

Theoretical foundations of discourse studies provide multiple lenses to analyze how

language functions in society. Structuralist theories focus on the system of language,
pragmatic theories emphasize communication strategies, and critical theories explore
power and ideology. Understanding these theories is crucial for analyzing texts in
literature, media, politics, and everyday conversation.

Key References

Saussure, F. (1916). Course in General Linguistics.

Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and Poetics.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.

Grice, P. (1975). Logic and Conversation.

Foucault, M. (1969). The Archaeology of Knowledge.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power.