Download Although the origins of the word discourse are not - E

Discourse Analysis
Although the origins of the word discourse are not entirely clear, applied linguists usually
agree that the term discourse analysis was first used in the 1950s by an American academic
called Zellig Harris (Martins, 2000). The purpose of discourse analysis is to demonstrate
the way that the communicative forces of discourse collectively result in meaning (Quine,
2005). The discourse analyst uses a spoken or written text as his or her source of data and
aims to identify features of language use which shed light on the communication of
meaning, intention and inference. These features can include not only lexis and grammar
but also inferred meanings and body language. Researchers analysing discourse
also often use terms such as cohesion and coherence. In general terms, according to Quine
(ibid), 'Cohesion refers to the grammatical and lexical relationship within a text, whereas
coherence refers to the arrangement of ideas and operates at the level of semantic logic.'
(p.77).
The linguistic approach to discourse analysis can be described as the examination of how
humans use language to communicate and how linguistic messages are constructed and
interpreted. In discourse analysis, researchers recognize the central position of people as
speakers, writers, readers and hearers. As Weinhof (2007) describes it, 'It is speakers and
writers who choose a topic, convey meaning, use pragmatic strategies and structure
language production, while hearers and readers interpret and draw inferences.' (p.14).
Classroom discourse analysts might be interested in whether students are using a more
'top-down' or 'bottom-up' form of processing to understand a text. Evidence suggests that
some learners process a text by starting with the smallest units of language before
building up to the full meaning, while others start with a more global view and then go
back to the smaller details. Other classroom researchers, using the schema theory (Carol,
1983), consider the way learners employ existing knowledge to help them process new
information.
As far as output is concerned, it is obvious that spoken and written language require quite
different skills. Speaking benefits from a wide range of effects including voice quality,
facial expression and body language. These areas are also known paralinguistic clues
(Davies, 2001). By using these tools, speakers are able to modify the power of the words
that they use. For example, a speaker who says 'I'd love to' whilst making a distressed face
is likely to mean the opposite of the actual words he or she uses.
Many experts concur that communication through speech is extremely challenging
(Davies, ibid.). Speakers need to monitor what they have just said while simultaneously
continuing the conversation with their interlocutor and planning their next response or
utterance. Unlike writing, there is usually no enduring record of a speech act.
Although the writer is not able to benefit from paralinguistic clues in the same way as
the speaker, he or she is often able to review existing writing and make pauses when
necessary without worrying about being interrupted. In other words, time can be taken
to reword or reorganize what has been written and to consult reference materials for
additional assistance.
1
Some researchers claim that communication through texting, chatrooms and other
online forums 'blends the features of writing and speaking in some astonishing new
ways' (Glass, 2003). Although the 'old school' may grumble about floods of newfangled features and plummeting standards in English, the innovation can also be
considered quite groundbreaking. For example, recent research into the use of
emoticons and smileys in e-mail communications shows that they actually add crucial
paralinguistic features.
In brief, in discourse analysis researchers are concerned with how language is
actually being used and how the different features of discourse can help us
understand the ways in which real communication is achieved. And because
language is organic, it is likely that new features will become apparent as new
research is conducted.
Text taken from: Manning, A. (2008). English for language and linguistics.
Reading: Garnet Education.
2