Discourse

Analysis
Facultad de Lenguas
y Educación
Discourse analysis

Discourse analysis has been described as an interdisciplinary study of

discourse within linguistics, though it has also been adopted (and adapted) by
researchers in numerous other fields in the social sciences. Theoretical
perspectives and approaches used in discourse analysis include the following:
applied linguistics, conversation analysis, pragmatics, rhetoric, stylistics, and
text linguistics, among many others.

2
 Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is sometimes defined as the analysis of language 'beyond

the sentence'. This contrasts with types of analysis more typical of modern
linguistics, which are chiefly concerned with the study of grammar: the study
of smaller bits of language, such as sounds (phonetics and phonology), parts
of words (morphology), meaning (semantics), and the order of words in
sentences (syntax). Discourse analysts study larger chunks of language as
they flow together.

Discourse Analysis 3
Discourse Analysis
“study the organisation of language above the sentence or above the clause,
and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational
exchanges or written texts. It follows that discourse analysis is also concerned
with language use in social contexts, and in particular with interaction or
dialogue between speakers

(a) concerned with language use beyond the boundaries of a

sentence/utterance,

(b) concerned with the interrelationships between language and society and

(c) as concerned with the interactive or dialogic properties of everyday

communication”

4
“In the study of language, some of the most interesting
observations are made, not in terms of the components of
language, but in terms of the way language is used, even how
pauses are used […] We were, in effect, asking how it is that
language-users successfully interpret what other language-
users intend to convey. When we carry this investigation
further and ask how we make sense of what we read, how we
can recognize well-constructed texts as opposed to those that
are jumbled or incoherent, how we understand speakers who
communicate more than they say, and how we successfully
take part in that complex activity called conversation, we are
undertaking what is known as discourse analysis” (Yule, 2010,
p. 141)
“The word “discourse” is usually defined as “language beyond
the sentence” and so the analysis of discourse is typically
concerned with the study of language in texts and conversation.
[…] We can cope with fragments in newspaper headlines such as
Trains collide, two die, and know that what happened in the first
part was the cause of what happened in the second part. We can
also make sense of notices like No shoes, no service, on shop
windows in summer, understanding that a conditional relation
exists between the two parts (“If you are wearing no shoes, you
will receive no service”). We have the ability to create complex
discourse interpretations of fragmentary linguistic messages.
“(Yule, 2010, p. 141)
Discourse and Frames

Frame analysis is a type of discourse analysis that asks,

What activity are speakers engaged in when they say this?
What do they think they are doing by talking in this way at
this time? Consider how hard it is to make sense of what
you are hearing or reading if you don't know who's talking
or what the general topic is. When you read a newspaper,
you need to know whether you are reading a news story, an
editorial, or an advertisement in order to properly interpret
the text you are reading.

7
Discourse Markers

'Discourse markers' is the term linguists give to the little words like 'well', 'oh',
'but', and 'and' that break our speech up into parts and show the relation
between parts. 'Oh' prepares the hearer for a surprising or just-remembered
item, and 'but' indicates that sentence to follow is in opposition to the one
before. However, these markers don't necessarily mean what the dictionary
says they mean. Some people use 'and' just to start a new thought, and some
people put 'but' at the end of their sentences, as a way of trailing off gently.
Realizing that these words can function as discourse markers is important to
prevent the frustration that can be experienced if you expect every word to
have its dictionary meaning every time it's used.

8
RHETORICAL STUDIES AND DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS
Discourse analysis has evolved along with rhetorical studies to include a much
wider range of topics, from public to private usage, official to colloquial
rhetoric, and from oratory to written and multimedia discourses.
“When we speak of discourse analysis, we're also "asking not just about the
rhetoric of politics, but also about the rhetoric of history and the rhetoric of
popular culture; not just about the rhetoric of the public sphere but about
rhetoric on the street, in the hair salon, or online; not just about the rhetoricity
of formal argument but also about the rhetoricity of personal identity.“
(Christopher Eisenhart and Barbara Johnstone)

9
Cohesion

We know, for example, that texts must have a certain structure that depends
on factors quite different from those required in the structure of a single
sentence. Some of those factors are described in terms of cohesion, or the
ties and connections that exist within texts. A number of those types of
cohesive ties can be identified in the following paragraph.

My father once bought a Lincoln convertible. He did it by saving every penny he

could. That car would be worth a fortune nowadays. However, he sold it to help
pay for my college education. Sometimes I think I’d rather have the convertible.

10
Cohesive ties
Cohesive ties are the patterns in the fabric (or texture) of written text. Cohesion is
displayed in the ties that exist within written text between

(1) a PRESUPPOSED ITEM and

(2) a PRESUPPOSING ITEM.

Examine the following sentences:

John makes good meals. Last night he made spaghetti.

HE is the presupposing item. JOHN is the presupposed item. Therefore, cohesive

ties establish a sample of written text's continuity. It is the linguistic mortar that
connects the written text together.

11
Cohesive ties can be classified in four major
categories.
I. Reference

II. Substitution/Ellipsis

III. Lexical Cohesion

IV. Conjunction

12
I. REFERENCE

A. Personals (He, him, they, them, theirs, it, its, etc)

Three young businessmen had lunch together. THEY ended up drinking too much.

B. Demonstrative (this, these, that, those, here, there, then)

Dr. Forbes drove two miles out of town to seem Mrs. Jones. Two days later, he
drove THERE again.

C. Comparatives (same, equal, better, more, identically, so)

John sold three tires for the price of one. Jack asked him, "Won't you give me the
SAME deal?"

13
II. Substitution/Ellipsis

A. Substitution—This type of cohesive tie places one item with another.

My razor is dull. I need a new ONE.

B. Ellipsis--The tie omits an item that is assumed.

I can only remember the names of 48 states. I need to name TWO MORE.
(Hint: two more what?)

14
III. LEXICAL COHESION
A. Reiteration--as with reference establishes a relationship of identity with the
presupposed item. In being reiterative, a word (tie) need not be identical to the
presupposed item.

Dick and I did the climb to Window Rock.' The ASCENT was easy.

B. Collocation--The association of lexical items that regularly co-occur across

expanses of sentences. Consider the following cohesive chaining of words that can
be related in a story about

Sunday morning. Newsstand, Sunday Newspaper, funnies, read, dad cooks

breakfast, church, relaxation.

Expanding the associative potential of collocational items emphasizes the semantic

power of a shared lexical environment independent of text structure.

15
IV. CONJUNCTION

IV. CONJUNCTION-- (and, but, so, next, etc.) Conjunctions that create an
instance of semantic connection

in which the conjunctive item receives a cohesive emphasis that characterizes

the relationship between the

two sentences.

He is cheap sometimes. BUT, he can be generous when he wants to.

They'll be back at 10 o'clock. SO come over early.

16
The following contractions can establish various kinds of ties

1. Additive (and, nor, furthermore, by the way, thus, in the same way)

2. Adversative connectives (yet, but, however in fact, on the other hand, rather,
in any case)

3. Causal Connectives (so, because, it follows)

4. Temporal Connectives (finally, then, meanwhile, to sum up)

17
Cohesive ties (the words that link ideas together)

Words I can use to show cause, effect or result causes an effect or as a

result of; resulted in

makes produced led to/leads to produces influenced gave scope to creates;

created caused by points toward changes an outcome of inspired a
repercussion of generated forms stemmed from provoked accounts for
arose out of brought about because of contributed to grew out of gave rise
to therefore a source of initiated consequently derived from fostered hence
engendered shaped ramifications of allowed as a consequence of gave
scope to culminated in encouraged stems from because so

18
Words I can use to show sequence Words to show time

• Firstly…OR…To begin with when

• Secondly then

• Next soon

• Finally afterwards

19
Words that show addition

• also moreover and

• in addition besides as well

• Furthermore not only additionally

• whereas

20
Words to tie in intext references or expert opinions

• states outlines suggests

• reveals mentions refers to

• describes infers distinguishes

• implies predicts concludes

• argues believes advocates

• put forward expresses the view

21
Words which indicate examples, results or the
significance of something
• for example for instance as• exemplifies symbolises reflects
exemplified by
• shows evidence of is an extension
• including these include such as of means

• accordingly as a result• manifests mirrors expresses

consequently
• as shown by
• therefore through discloses

• indicates shows that represents

22
 Discourse Analysis

https://busyteacher.org/20571-7-turn-taking-
strategies-boost-student-speaking.html

Discourse Analysis 23
Coherence

The key to the concept of coherence (“everything fitting

together well”) is not something that exists in words or
structures, but something that exists in people. It is people
who “make sense” of what they read and hear. They try to
arrive at an interpretation that is in line with their
experience of the way the world is. Indeed, our ability to
make sense of what we read is probably only a small part
of that general ability we have to make sense of what we
perceive or experience in the world.

24
HER: That’s the telephone.

HIM: I’m in the bath.

HER: O.K.

There are certainly no cohesive ties within this fragment of discourse. How
does each of these people manage to make sense of what the other says?
They do use the information contained in the sentences expressed, but there
must be something else involved in the interpretation. It has been suggested
that exchanges of this type are best understood in terms of the conventional
actions performed by the speakers in such interactions. Drawing on concepts
derived from the study of speech acts(introduced the previous unit), we can
characterize the brief conversation in the following way.

25
You may have found when you were reading an oddly constructed text that you
kept trying to make the text fit some situation or experience that would
accommodate all the details. If you work at it long enough, you may indeed
find a way to incorporate all those disparate elements into a single coherent
interpretation. In doing so, you would necessarily be involved in a process of
filling in a lot of gaps that exist in the text. You would have to create
meaningful connections that are not actually expressed by the words and
sentences. This process is not restricted to trying to understand “odd” texts. In
one way or another, it seems to be involved in our interpretation of all
discourse. It is certainly present in the interpretation of casual conversation.
We are continually taking part in conversational interactions where a great
deal of what is meant is not actually present in what is said. Perhaps it is the
ease with which we ordinarily anticipate each other’s intentions that makes
this whole complex process seem so unremarkable.

26
Coherence: The co-operative principle

An underlying assumption in most conversational

exchanges seems to be that the participants are co-
operating with each other. This principle, together with
four maxims that we expect our conversational partners
to obey, was first described by the philosopher Paul
Grice. The co-operative principle is stated in the following
way: “Make your conversational contribution such as is
required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted
purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you
are engaged.

27
Gricean maxims

• The Quantity maxim: Make your contribution as informative as is

required, but not more, or less, than is required.
• The Quality maxim: Do not say that which you believe to be false or for
which you lack adequate evidence.
• The Relation maxim: Be relevant.
• The Manner maxim: Be clear, brief and orderly.

28
Turn-taking

Discourse analysts who study conversation note that speakers have

systems for determining when one person's turn is over and the next
person's turn begins. This exchange of turns or 'floors' is signaled by
such linguistic means as intonation, pausing, and phrasing. Some
people await a clear pause before beginning to speak, but others
assume that 'winding down' is an invitation to someone else to take
the floor. When speakers have different assumptions about how turn
exchanges are signaled, they may inadvertently interrupt or feel
interrupted. On the other hand, speakers also frequently take the floor
even though they know the other speaker has not invited them to do
so.

29
Listenership too may be signaled in different ways. Some
people expect frequent nodding as well as listener
feedback such as 'mhm', 'uhuh', and 'yeah'. Less of this
than you expect can create the impression that someone is
not listening; more than you expect can give the
impression that you are being rushed along. For some, eye
contact is expected nearly continually; for others, it should
only be intermittent. The type of listener response you get
can change how you speak: If someone seems
uninterested or uncomprehending (whether or not they
truly are), you may slow down, repeat, or overexplain,
giving the impression you are 'talking down.'

30
Hedges

• words or phrases used to indicate that we’re not really sure that what
we’re saying is sufficiently correct or complete. We can use sort of or
kind of as hedges on the accuracy of our statements, as in descriptions
such as His hair was kind of long or The book cover is sort of yellow
• As far as I know …, Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but … I’m not absolutely
sure, but ….

31
Implicatures

speakers implying something that is not said

• CAROL: Are you coming to the party tonight?

• LARA: I’ve got an exam tomorrow.

On the face of it, Lara’s statement is not an answer to Carol’s question. Lara
doesn’t say Yes or No. Yet Carol will immediately interpret the statement as
meaning “No” or “Probably not.” How can we account for this ability to
grasp one meaning from a sentence that, in a literal sense, means
something else? It seems to depend, at least partially, on the assumption
that Lara is being relevant and informative, adhering to the maxims of
Relation and Quantity.

32
Background knowledge

• John was on his way to school last Friday. He was really worried about the
math lesson.
• Most people who are asked to read these sentences report that they
think John is probably a schoolboy. Since this piece of information is not
directly stated in the text, it must be an inference. Other inferences, for
different readers, are that John is walking or that he is on a bus. These
inferences are clearly derived from our conventional knowledge, in our
culture, about “going to school,” and no reader has ever suggested that

33
Schemas and scripts
A schema is a general term for a conventional knowledge structure
that exists in memory. If you hear someone describe what happened
during a visit to a supermarket, you don’t have to be told what is
normally found in a supermarket. You already have a “supermarket
schema” (food displayed on shelves, arranged in aisles, shopping
carts and baskets, check-out counter, and other conventional
features) as part of your background knowledge. Similar in many
ways to a schema is a script. A script is essentially a dynamic
schema. That is, instead of the set of typical fixed features in a
schema, a script has a series of conventional actions that take place.
You have a script for “Going to the dentist” and another script for
“Going to the movies.” We all have versions of an “Eating in a
restaurant” script, which we can activate to make sense of this short
text.
34