Discourse analysis

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (November 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Sociolinguistics
Key concepts
Code-switching Language change Language ideology Language planning Multilingualism Prestige Variation
Areas of study
Accent Bilingual pun Dialect Diglossia Homophonic translation Macaronic language Phono-semantic matching Register Discourse analysis Language varieties Linguistic description Loanword Pragmatics Pidgin Soramimi
People
Sociolinguists
Related fields
Applied linguistics Historical linguistics Linguistic anthropology Sociocultural linguistics Sociology of language
Category Linguistics portal
v t e

Part of a series on
Linguistics
Outline History Index
General linguistics Diachronic Lexicography Morphology Phonology Pragmatics Semantics Syntax Syntax–semantics interface Typology
Applied linguistics Acquisition Anthropological Applied Computational Conversation analysis Corpus linguistics Discourse analysis Determinism Distance Documentation Ethnography of communication Ethnomethodology Forensic History of linguistics Interlinguistics Neurolinguistics Philology Philosophy of language Phonetics Psycholinguistics Sociolinguistics Text Translating and interpreting Writing systems
Theoretical frameworks Formalist Constituency Dependency Distributionalism Generative Glossematics Functional Cognitive Construction grammar Functional discourse grammar Grammaticalization Interactional linguistics Prague circle Systemic functional Usage-based Structuralism
Topics Autonomy of syntax Compositionality Conservative and innovative language Descriptivism Etymology Iconicity Internationalism Internet linguistics LGBTQ linguistics Origin of language Orismology Orthography Philosophy of linguistics Prescriptivism Second-language acquisition Theory of language Terminology
Portal
v t e

Part of a series on
Research
Research design Ethics Proposal Question Writing Argument Referencing
Research strategy Interdisciplinary Multimethodology Qualitative Art-based Quantitative
Philosophical schools Antipositivism Constructivism Critical rationalism Empiricism Fallibilism Positivism Postpositivism Pragmatism Realism Critical realism Subtle realism
Methodology Action research Art methodology Critical theory Grounded theory Hermeneutics Historiography Human subject research Narrative inquiry Phenomenology Pragmatism Scientific method
Methods Analysis Case study Content analysis Descriptive statistics Discourse analysis Ethnography Autoethnography Experiment Field experiment Social experiment Quasi-experiment Field research Historical method Inferential statistics Interviews Mapping Cultural mapping Phenomenography Secondary research Bibliometrics Literature review Meta-analysis Scoping review Systematic review Scientific modelling Simulation Survey
Tools and software Argument technology Geographic information system software Library and information science software Bibliometrics Reference management Science software Qualitative data analysis Simulation Statistics
Philosophy portal
v t e

Discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies, is an approach to the analysis of written, spoken, or sign language, including any significant semiotic event.^{[citation needed]}

The objects of discourse analysis (discourse, writing, conversation, communicative event) 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.^[1] Text linguistics is a closely related field. 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.^[2]

Discourse analysis has been taken up in a variety of disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, including linguistics, education, sociology, anthropology, social work, cognitive psychology, social psychology, area studies, cultural studies, international relations, human geography, environmental science, communication studies, biblical studies, public relations, argumentation studies, and translation studies, each of which is subject to its own assumptions, dimensions of analysis, and methodologies.^{[citation needed]}

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (December 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

There is ongoing discussion about whether Austria-born Leo Spitzer's Stilstudien (Style Studies) of 1928 is the earliest example of discourse analysis (DA).^{[citation needed]} Michel Foucault translated it into French.^[3] However, the term first came into general use following the publication^{[citation needed]} of a series of papers by Zellig Harris from 1952^[4] reporting on work from which he developed transformational grammar in the late 1930s. Formally equivalent relations among the sentences of a coherent discourse are made explicit by using sentence transformations to put the text in a canonical form. Words and sentences with equivalent information then appear in the same column of an array.

This work progressed over the next four decades (see references) into a science of sublanguage analysis (Kittredge & Lehrberger 1982), culminating in a demonstration of the informational structures in texts of a sublanguage of science, that of immunology (Harris et al. 1989),^[5] and a fully articulated theory of linguistic informational content (Harris 1991).^[5] During this time, however, most linguists ignored such developments in favor of a succession of elaborate theories of sentence-level syntax and semantics.^[6]

In January 1953, a linguist working for the American Bible Society, James A. Lauriault (alt. Loriot), needed to find answers to some fundamental errors in translating Quechua, in the Cuzco area of Peru. Following Harris's 1952 publications, he worked over the meaning and placement of each word in a collection of Quechua legends with a native speaker of Quechua and was able to formulate discourse rules that transcended the simple sentence structure. He then applied the process to Shipibo, another language of Eastern Peru. He taught the theory at the^[7] Summer Institute of Linguistics in Norman, Oklahoma, in the summers of 1956 and 1957 and entered the University of Pennsylvania^[8] to study with Harris in the interim year. He tried to publish a paper,^[9]Shipibo Paragraph Structure, but it was delayed until 1970 (Loriot & Hollenbach 1970).^{[citation needed]} In the meantime, Kenneth Lee Pike, a professor at the University of Michigan,^[10] taught the theory, and one of his students, Robert E. Longacre, developed it in his writings. Harris's methodology disclosing the correlation of form with meaning was developed into a system for the computer-aided analysis of natural language by a team led by Naomi Sager at NYU, which has been applied to a number of sublanguage domains, most notably to medical informatics. The software for the Medical Language Processor is publicly available on SourceForge.^[11]

In the late 1960s and 1970s, and without reference to this prior work, a variety of other approaches to a new cross-discipline of DA began to develop in most of the humanities and social sciences concurrently with, and related to, other disciplines. These include semiotics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics. Many of these approaches, especially those influenced by the social sciences, favor a more dynamic study of oral talk-in-interaction. An example is "conversational analysis" (CA),^[12] which was influenced by the sociologist Harold Garfinkel,^[13] the founder of ethnomethodology.

The following are some of the specific theoretical perspectives and analytical approaches used in linguistic discourse analysis:

• Applied linguistics, an interdisciplinary perspective on linguistic analysis^[14]
• Cognitive neuroscience of discourse comprehension^[15][16]
• Cognitive psychology, studying the production and comprehension of discourse.
• Conversation analysis
• Critical discourse analysis
• Discursive psychology
• Emergent grammar
• Ethnography of communication
• Functional grammar
• Interactional sociolinguistics
• Mediated stylistics
• Pragmatics
• Response based therapy (counselling)
• Rhetoric
• Stylistics (linguistics)
• Sublanguage analysis
• Tagmemics
• Text linguistics
• Variation analysis

Although these approaches emphasize different aspects of language use, they all view language as social interaction and are concerned with the social contexts in which discourse is embedded.

Often a distinction is made between 'local' structures of discourse (such as relations among sentences, propositions, and turns) and 'global' structures, such as overall topics and the schematic organization of discourses and conversations. For instance, many types of discourse begin with some kind of global 'summary', in titles, headlines, leads, abstracts, and so on.

Topics of discourse analysis include:^[17]

• The various levels or dimensions of discourse, such as sounds (intonation, etc.), gestures, syntax, the lexicon, style, rhetoric, meanings, speech acts, moves, strategies, turns, and other aspects of interaction
• Genres of discourse (various types of discourse in politics, the media, education, science, business, etc.)
• The relations between discourse and the emergence of syntactic structure
• The relations between text (discourse) and context
• The relations between discourse and power^[18]
• The relations between discourse and interaction
• The relations between discourse and cognition and memory
• Lexical density

Political discourse is the text and talk of professional politicians or political institutions, such as presidents and prime ministers and other members of government, parliament or political parties, both at the local, national and international levels, includes both the speaker and the audience.^[19]

Political discourse analysis is a field of discourse analysis which focuses on discourse in political forums (such as debates, speeches, and hearings) as the phenomenon of interest. Policy analysis requires discourse analysis to be effective from the post-positivist perspective.^[20][21]

Political discourse is the formal exchange of reasoned views as to which of several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve a societal problem.^[22][23]

Corporate discourse can be broadly defined as the language used by corporations. It encompasses a set of messages that a corporation sends out to the world (the general public, the customers and other corporations) and the messages it uses to communicate within its own structures (the employees and other stakeholders).^[24]

• DiscourseNet. International Association for Discourse Studies
• The Discourse Attributes Analysis Program and Measures of the Referential Process Archived 2023-03-16 at the Wayback Machine.
• Linguistic Society of America: Discourse Analysis, by Deborah Tannen
• Discourse Analysis by Z. Harris
• Daniel L. Everett, Documenting Languages: The View from the Brazilian Amazon Statement concerning James Loriot, p. 9
• A discourse analysis related international conference You can find some information and events related to Metadiscourse Across Genres by visiting MAG 2017 website