Introduction To Discourse Analysis PDF

ENGLISH STUDIES IN FOCUS: READINGS IN LANGUAGE AND LITERATUTRE. E. A.
ADEDUN & YAW SEKYI-

BAIDOO (EDS). 2014. FACULTY OF LANGUAGES, UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA, GHANA
CHAPTER 9
INTRODUCTION TO DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
SolaOsoba
and
Eniayo Sobola
Introduction
There is often an interchange of language and discourse by learners in the linguistic and literary
fields in the attempt to account for the use of language in various fields of study. In this chapter,
we explicate discourse, discourse analysis, its related fields and approaches to the study in a deep
introductory method to expose learners to conceptual clarifications in the field of discourse.
Discourse is not restricted to the study in the Department of English and Linguisticsalone; it cuts
across all the fields of learning. It is language in use. As long as language is used by people in
various social fields, there are various types of discourse to be investigated. Therefore, discourse
analysts have a wider spectrum of areas to cover to account for how language is used through
linguistic and theoretical tools.
Discourse formation
Grammatical study of language is restricted to sentence analysis because sentence is the highest
in the grammatical rank-scale. Grammar does not create a room for analysis above sentence. The
need to investigate language beyond the level of sentence gives birth to discourse. Discourse has
been viewed by different scholars as the organization or unit of language above sentence (Stubbs
1983:1, Schiffrin 1987a: 1, T. Onadeko 2000: 82). The structuralists and formalists are
concerned with the linguistic features of universal language- phonology, syntax and semantics,
which do not include connected sentences or utterances. Connected sentences are the building
blocks of discourse. Schiffrin (1994) asserts that:
Consistent with the definition of discourse as language “above the
sentence,” many contemporary structural analyses of discourse view
the sentence as the unit of which discourse is comprised. (25)
Linguists who found it difficult to give a concise definition of discourse did not find it difficult to
agree that discourse is language beyond sentence. It is referred to as language use larger than
sentence. Connected sentences in a naturally occurring utterance play a crucial role in the
formation of discourse. Discourse is not just a combination of sentences; it must occur in a
particular context unified and convey a social meaning. It is possible to combine sentences
together without a cohesive unity. Such combination of sentences cannot be referred to as
200
ENGLISH STUDIES IN FOCUS: READINGS IN LANGUAGE AND LITERATUTRE. E. A. ADEDUN & YAW SEKYI-
discourse it does not possess the features that discourse is expected to have. Crystal (1992)
explains that, “Discourse: a continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than a
sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as a sermon, argument, joke, or narrative” (25).
His explanation validates that discourse is not formed by any disjointed stretch of sentences, but
coordinated language in a social context. Discourse is found in all fields of learning where
language is used for interactive purposes such as law, science, medicine, education, fashion,
engineering, sport, politics, media and more. From the above, Crystal as well as other scholars
limit discourse to spoken language. We should, therefore,know that discourse can either be
spoken or written. Egbe (1996: 72) supports our view when he refers to “talk and text” as
“connected speech and continuous writing” respectively, and contextualizes both as “a stretch of
natural language that is longer than the sentence,” which is discourse.
Discourse formation, which is organization of language not only beyond the sentence but more
than a paragraph, requires skills. We can say that discourse has two major structures: micro and
macro. The micro-structure of discourse involves the combination of smaller bits of language to
make up the word, the phrase, the clause and the sentence. The macro-structure of language
organization is the discourse proper because it helps in the analysis of language beyond the
sentence level. At this level of language organization, important factors such as purpose, the
topic or subject matter, thesis statement and the audience are to be considered to produce a
meaningful discourse. These factors are better discussed in the composition section.
In another stance, discourse is viewed from the social function of language as language in use.
Schiffrin (1994: 20) gives a comprehensive meaning of discourse when she explains discourse as
“a particular unit of language (above the sentence), and a particular focus (on language
use).”The explanation covers both perspectives of scholars on discourse as a fragment of
language beyond sentence and as language in use. The two perspectives are formalist and
functional approaches to discourse. Fasold (1990: 65) is among the scholars who approached
discourse from the functional point of view. He says that, “the study of discourse is the study of
any aspect of language use”. Language is not used in a vacuum; it is used in a context by
participants to perform certain functions. That is why utterance is situated in a context. Schiffrin
(1994) corroborates with this view when she explicates that, “discourse is viewed as a system (a
socially and culturally organized way of speaking) through which particular functions are
realized” (32). Social functions performed by discourse delineate the communicative role of
discourse and the various fields of endeavours to which discourse belongs.
Discourse is both structural and functional in nature and the best approach to discourse is to
explicate it from both structural and functional perspectives to show how language is used in
social context, and what it is used to do.
Discourse analysis
201
Since discourse has been explored as a unit of language above sentence and focus on language
use in social context to perform social functions, discourse analysis is the analysis of a unit of
language above sentence used in a social context to perform social functions. Brown and Yule
(1983: 1) state the core of discourse analysis thus:
the analysis of discourse, is necessarily, the analysis of language
in use. As such, it cannot be restricted to the description of
linguistic forms independent of the purposes or functions which
these forms are designed to serve in human affairs.
The concern of discourse analysts is the study of language in use in social context, that is, what
language is used for not the formal properties of language. They are interested in different social
contexts of conversation especially its organization and the processes involved in the encoding
and decoding of its meaning. The focus of the analyst in the field of discourse is naturally
occurring conversation which may be utterances or documented conversation. Onadeko (2000:
83) from the linguistic perspective to discourse gives a unique insight to discourse by saying, “It
is the scientific study of naturally occurring (i.e. spontaneous) conversation (or what is meant to
be rendered in written mode) which exists between at least two participants in a social context.”
From his view, discourse analysis encompasses all verbal and non-verbal actions that take place
in a conversation in a social setting. Schiffrin (1994: 42) also gives an interesting exposition by
explaining that analyses of discourse reveal interdependence between structure and function of
language in use. She asserts that structural definition focuses on text while functional definition
focuses on context.
There are several functions that language can be used to perform in social context especially
interactional conversational interaction. Jakobson (1960) proposes six functions of language
which Hymes (1962) also supports. Stubbs (1995: 46) having observed these functions, builds on
Jakobson’s and Hymes’ contributions by making his own proposition on functions of language
as expressive or emotive, directive or conative, poetic, contact or phatic, metalinguistic,
referential and contextual functions. Halliday (1970: 140-165) has also proposed three broad
functions he believes language should perform as ideational, interpersonal and textual functions.
These functions can be performed by language in different genres of discourse. Texts can be
taken from various genres of discourse such as family (interaction among family members),
classroom (interaction between teacher and students), hospital (interaction between doctor and
patient), market (interaction between seller and buyer), political (conversation among political
actors on political issues), religious (interaction between priest and congregation), legal
(conversation on legal issues either between the judge and the accused or between lawyer and his
client). In each of these fields of human operation, the function that language is used to perform
can be situated in any of the functions given above, or at times a discourse can perform some of
these function if analyzed.
202
Zellig Harris (1952) is the first scholar to use the term discourse analysis as a method for
analysis of connected speech or writing in order to continue descriptive linguistic analysis
beyond a single sentence, and also to show correlation between culture and language. He
employed distributional technique to discover elements that can co-occur in the same
environment to show the pattern of combination of the classes of words in a text (Malmkjær and
Anderson 1991: 100),on the other hand to discover the patterns of morphemes, which should be
able to distinguish a text from a collection of sentences (Onadeko 2000: 84). He could not do
justice to the concept because he only applied the structuralist approach which could not explore
semantic import of language analyzed. Halliday (1961, 1967 and 1970) develops what Harris
introduced earlier when he discusses the field, the mode and the tenor of discourse. Sinclair and
Coulthard (1975) are the first people that made an attempt to produce a structural analysis of
naturally occurring conversation in classroom dialogue. They examine spontaneous discourse
units and their relation in sequence. Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) have paved the
ground on which Sinclair and Coulthard achieved their success in discourse analysis. Various
scholars have produced several works on the concept.
Discourse features
There are certain features that characterized discourse. These features varies in number, but what
makes them important is that they are embedded in the field of discourse and their knowledge
makes the analysis of discourse easier for scholars who are not very familiar with discourse.
Among all those who have produced literatures on discourse analysis Wale Osisanwo gives
simple but comprehensive features of discourse in his introductory book Introduction to
Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics. These features agree with our perspective and will be
explored briefly.
i. Conversation: this is interaction between people. At two people must be involved in
conversation, and one talks after another especially as a response to the first speaker. In some
situation, one may use paralinguistic cues as a response such as gesture, nodding or facial
expression.
ii. Discourse participants: these are the people involved in conversation. They are known as
interlocutors; each of them is addressed differently as speaker and addressee.
iii. Opening and closing of discourse: the preliminary exchange that must take place before
conversation begins is discourse opening. It may be in form of greeting or summoning. It creates
a platform to initiate conversation. Closing of discourse is the concluding remark made by one of
the participants to show that conversation has come to an end. The cues such as “bye”, “good
bye” or “final” could be used.
iv. Holding floor: this is a situation in which a participant is speaking in a discourse while the
other participants wait for him to finish what he has to say. The person speaking is holding floor
at that moment.
v. Turn-taking: it is a point at which a speaker stops speaking and another speaker begins to
speak. In conversation each participant waits for his turn to avoid overlapping.
203
vi. Selecting the next speaker: it is the method of choosing who speaks. It is done in two ways:
either by calling the next speaker to air his view or by using non-verbal cues such as pointing to
the next speaker or simply keeping quiet after speaking if only two participants are involved in
discourse.
vii. Overlapping: it is also called interruption. It occurs when another speaker does not allow the
first speaker to finish his talk, so that two or more participants are talking at the same time as we
experience in football talks.
viii. Topic negotiation: it is a device used by a participant who feels abandoned in conversation
and is eager to make his point at all cost. It is done by introducing a new topic.
ix. Discourse markers: these are the devices or cue words used to mark boundary of an utterance
in discourse to show relation. They show how a piece of discourse is connected to another piece
of discourse, that is, they show connection between what has been said or written and what will
be said or written. For example, “mind you”, “still”, “by the way”, “however”, “nevertheless”,
“like”.
x. Speech errors: these are mistakes made during conversation or when a turn is going on. It
could be factual error or errors of construction. It includes hesitations, repetitions and use of gap
fillers such as “em”, “I...”, “You know”, “I mean” etc.
xi. Repair mechanism: this is the method used to correct speech errors. It may be done through
restatement or withdrawal of statement, or being corrected by the other participants.
xii. Role sharing: role is allocated to participants in a social set-up based on age, sex, education,
achievement, profession or social status. The factors above are used in allocation of turns in
human society since it is highly stratified. The binary features of Berry (1987: 51) assign +higher
and –higher roles to distinguish the status of the participants in conversation.
xiii. Talk initiation: it is the process of starting conversation. One of the participants starts the
conversation while the other listens.
xiv. Elicitation in talk: it is the process of demanding a reaction, response or feedback (verbal or
non-verbal) from an interlocutor by questioning the interlocutor.
xv. Adjacency pairs: when the exchange structures are in pairs, we have adjacency pair. They are
always complementary and reciprocatory with features such as greeting and response, complaint
and apology, question and answer, challenge and reaction.
Discourse rank-scale
The concept of rank-scale is the organization of units in hierarchical order. It means that a larger
unit in rank is made up of one or more units of the rank below it. In this case, it implies that the
higher unit in rank has structure that can be explored while the lowest unit has no structure.
Halliday (1961) divides grammar into morpheme, word, phrase, clause and sentence in
grammatical rank-scale. In consonance with his grammatical rank-scale but contrary in context,
Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) divides classroom discourse into organizational units in
hierarchical order as: lesson
↓
transaction
204
↓
exchange
↓
move
↓
act
in descending order. Lesson is the highest unit in discourse rank-scale while act is the lowest unit
in ascending order.
Act
An act is the smallest unit in discourse hierarchy. It has no structure of its own; therefore, it is
not divisible just like morpheme. It can be created by grammatical units such as words, groups,
clauses or sentences. It relates to the function of an utterance it was meant to perform which is
illocutionary act of Searle (1962). Act always performs actions, and it is categorized according to
functions it performs. There are three main types of act. They are informative act, elicitation act
and directive act. An informative act gives information to the interlocutor in form of response
either positive or negative in verbal utterance or non-verbal communication such as nodding,
shaking of head etc. For example:
Beni: You need to rest.
Teni: Yes. (positive response)
Bola: I will take your bag to the party.

Bala: No, I won’t allow you. (negative response)
Charles: You need to be a good girl. You know.

Grace: (Nod) (non-verbal communication)
An elicitation act is used to demand a verbal response the interlocutor. It comes in form of
question with a predicated answer. If the response is delayed, the question is repeated with
emphasis or reframed. The response may be accompanied by body language such as nodding,
raising or shaking of hand. For example:
Mum: Where is the toy?
John: It is here, mum. (immediate response)
Solomon: Where are you coming from?

Mary: (Silence) (delayed response)
Solomon: I ask again; where are you coming from?
Mary: The club.
205
A directive act requests an action as a response either for the benefit of the speaker or other
people. It may receive either verbal or non-verbal response, or at times both verbal and non-
verbal response. For example:
Toni: Let’s make it a deal.
Tonia: A deal.
Chukwu: Can you give me a cup of water?

Chinyere: (Coming with a cup of water) Here is it sir.
Dad: Please shut the door.

Titi: (She shut the door.)
Move
A move is a unit of discourse higher than act in rank and lower than exchange. It consists of one
or more acts in its structure. A move is simple when it consists of one act, but complex when
there are more than one act in its constituent. Unlike act, a move has act in its structure. For
example:
Chuks: I need your help. (simple move)
James: What can I do for you?
Chuks: I lost my wallet when I was coming from the Sports Centre. I don’t have any money with
me, and I need to go home. Please, lend me #500 till next week. (complex move)
James: Okay, take (giving him the money).
Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) have identified five types of move in classroom discourse which
make up exchanges. They are framing move, focusing move, opening move, answering move
and follow-up move. The framing move is used to structure lesson, that is, it indicates the end of
a lesson or initial task and readiness for another task. The focusing move follows framing move;
it is used to attract students’ attention to the direction of the lesson or change the direction of the
speaker. For example:
Ayo: As soon as I collect my salary, I will change the furniture. (focusing)
Funke: Wait, you must pay your rent first. (framing)
The opening move can be used to supply information, ask a question, make a request, direct an
action or elicit a fact (Coulthard 1992: 22). The opening move directs the students to participate
in a conversation by starting it off for them to follow. Answering move is a response to the
opening. An answering move may have two parts: a head and a post-head. It is the head that will
give the response to the opening, and the post-head requires that the initiator of the opening to
give a response to it.
Dad: Prepare a cup of tea for me. (opening)
Vero: Yes sir. Do you want it cold or hot? (answering)
206
(head) (post-head)
Dad: Make it hot. (response to post-head)
The follow-up move takes place after the answering move. It functions as feedback or verdict to
confirm whether the answering move is correct or wrong. It is produced by someone who plays a
higher role in conversation especially the teacher as a reaction to the student’s response, or
parent to child.
Supervisor: How do you convince a customer to choose your customer to choose your product
instead of other products?
Sales rep.: I will persuade the customer that my product has some benefits that other products
do not have, and that it is the best of its kind and latest in the market at the price
cheaper than its functions, and let him know that missing my product is a loss to
him.
Supervisor: Good, you got it. (follow-up)
Exchange
An exchange is made up of moves. There are two types of exchange in classroom discourse
according to Sinclair and Coulthard (1992: 25). They are boundary exchanges and teaching
exchanges. Boundary exchanges are initiated by the teacher to signal a transition from one
section of lesson to another. Teaching exchanges take place where questions are asked, answered
and feedback is given to the answers. Boundary exchange consists of two moves: framing and
focusing moves. Teaching exchange consists of three moves: opening, answering and follow-up
moves. Sinclair and Coulthard (1992: 3) refer to these moves as initiation, response and feedback
in, “A typical exchange in the classroom consists of an initiation by the teacher, followed by a
response from the pupil, followed by feedback to the pupil.” Coulthard and Brasil (1992: 65) are
in consonance with them by coining the term Initiator, Response and Feedback (IRF).
Sinclair and Coulthard (1992: 26-27) describe three kinds of teaching exchanges as informing,
directing and eliciting exchanges. An informing exchange takes place in a situation where the
teacher needs to give his or her students new information or facts that they need to know. A
directing exchange is meant to get the students to perform an action by doing something, but not
speaking. An eliciting exchange is the common exchange in the classroom discourse. It takes
place when the teacher asks a question; the student provides an answer, and the teacher gives a
follow-up evaluation.
Transaction
Transaction is made up of an exchange or a sequence of exchanges united by a single task. It is
the next to lesson in the rank-scale. It is the basic unit of conversation and consists of minimal
contribution made by the participants in the discourse. It usually begins with an opening and
207
ends with a closing. There are boundary markers such as “right now”, “ok”, “well”, “right”
which indicates the beginning of a new transaction. These markers are called frames.
Lesson
A lesson is the highest unit of classroom discourse. It consists of a set of transactions. It refers to
all activities that take place in the classroom from the moment the teacher enters the class till he
leaves. It consists of a sequence of interactions.
Spoken discourse
Spoken discourse includes all verbal utterances either formal or informal. It is discourse in verbal
or spoken form. Every social activity we get involved in to relate with one another such as causal
conversation, interview, sermon, seminar, public lecture, classroom conversation, telephone
exchange, political talk and so on is spoken discourse. Though spoken discourse is verbal, it is
also accompanied by some non-verbal behaviour such as facial gestures and body movement to
aid interpretation of discourse. Casual conversation is the most frequent type of spoken discourse
found in human society. Spoken discourse may be face-to-face or distance communication where
the speaker is not physically present like telephone conversation, radio and television broadcast.
Certain features characterized spoken discourse which include known or expected audience,
instant understanding and feedback, faster than written discourse and varied in speech, gesture,
intonation, rhythm, pitch range and pausing. Its lexical and grammatical compositions encourage
the use of short phrases and clauses, attributive adjectives and lexical repetitions.
Spoken discourse may be classified according to the number of participants involved. We have
monologue in an uninterrupted speech by only one person. The speaker may be talking to
himself or others who do not respond or are not expected to respond. It is mostly used in drama.
Dialogue is a conversation between two participants. Multilogue is a conversational situation
where many participants are involved in a conversation.
Utterance and communicative acts

Utterance and communicative acts are indispensable concepts in spoken discourse. Utterance is a
unit of spoken language in context. Schiffrin (1994: 39-41) describes discourse as utterances. It
implies that utterances are small units which made up discourse. Utterances are contextualized
sentences, that is, a collection of sentences placed in a particular context just as discourse is
defined as language in context. An utterance is different from a sentence because a sentence is
decontextualized while an utterance is contextualized sentences. Utterances are used to perform
communicative acts. The concept of communicative acts is derived from J. L. Austin lecture of
1955 titled How to Do Things with Words where he described every speech as an action.
Communicative act is also referred to as speech act. Every utterance made by a speaker is meant
to perform an action, that is, changing the reality of the situation in context. It is the performative
208
function of illocutionary act of the speech acts. The outcome of communicative act is the action
carried out as a result of the utterance which is illocutionary result. The position of J. R. Searle
(1962) is that understanding the utterance which he called illocutionary result is more important.
He explains illocutionary act as conventional relation between the utterance and the intention of
the speaker. The act of the utterance is the main concern in communicative actions. It may be
any of those given by J. R. Searle (1969): assertives, directives, commissives, expressives and
declaratives or those given by Jakobson (1960) referential, emotive, phatic, conative,
metaphysical and poetic functions. Communicative act is structured according to the three levels
of speech act: locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act because it is believed that
utterance performs action at each level of speech act.
Written discourse
Written discourse is any form of discourse that been graphically represented or documented on a
piece of paper or other media means. It encourages documentation of the message conveyed
which can be used later for referencing. It is carefully constructed with a room for correction and
reconstruction unlike the spoken discourse. The writer is able to adjust the content of his work.
The ideas in written discourse are organized structurally into paragraphs. Each paragraph
conveys an idea that can be summarized into one sentence called the topic sentence. Punctuation
marks are employed in written discourse to make it meaningful to the reader. The paragraphs are
linked one to another by connectives to make the discourse a unified whole. We should note that
written discourse can be divided into chapters, verses, sections, units, headings, subheadings etc.
The writer is always careful in written discourse because anyone can pick the text up at any time
to read. Some of the examples are novel, play, poem, book, editorial in newspaper, article in
magazine, letter, report etc (Brown and Yule 1983: 12-26).
Text
The pioneers of systemic functional linguistic (SFL) who develop interest in the study of written
discourse refer to the study of written discourse as text linguistics (Halliday and Hasan 1985: 10,
Bloor and Bloor 1995: 86). Their view is that written discourse has certain feature which makes
it different from spoken discourse, which is actually its textuality.
Text originates from the Latin form textus meaning “to weave”. It is a continuous piece of
writingor an extract from any part of written or printed materials (Daramola 2001: 161). Text is
not restricted to written language alone; it is both spoken and written. It is defined by linguists as
any language that is functional, that is, either spoken or written language working in a particular
context. Halliday and Hasan (1976:1) explain that, “The word text is used in linguistics to refer
to any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length that does firm a unified whole.” It means
that a text may be spoken or written, but it must have elements of unity which will enable it to
make meaning or sense. It is described as a semantic unit. Daramola (ibid) explains that it has
two basic features: a product and a process. It can be constructed and recorded in a systematic
209
way for further assessment as a product. It evolves as a semantic choice, as a process, through a
semantic network in a context. Text can be seen as a means of exchange or an interactive event
between two speakers of a language.
Texture
Texture is the quality of a text. A text has texture because that is what distinguishes it from other
combination of words that is not a text. It is the element that unifies the structure of a text by
showing relation between sentences in an environment (Halliday and Hasan 1976:2). Daramola
(2001:163) asserts that, “the texture of a text is a demonstration of some kinds of semantic
relations between its components or messages.” He justifies a text as a semantic unit which has
texture as element of its meaning unity.
Context
Context is the social environment in which a text occurs. It is a set of fact around a particular
event. Thus, it is everything that surrounds production of an utterance including the situation, the
interlocutors and the knowledge of the cultural norms and behaviour. All these external factors
constitute context which helps the language speaker to interpret meaning in appropriate manner.
Schiffrin (1994) categorically declares that:
Context is thus a world filled with people producing utterances:
people who have social, cultural and personal identities,
knowledge, beliefs, goals and wants and who interact with one
another in various socially and culturally defined situations. (363)
In discourse analysis, we study both text and context. The idea of context is credited to
Malinowski’s context of situation which refers to the context in which users of any language or
participants in discourse found themselves. Context of situation is indispensable in the
interpretation and understanding of discourse (Daramola 2005: 67). A text occurs in a context of
situation. There are three components of context of situation according to Halliday. They are
field, tenor and mode. The three components help us to focus our attention on a particular speech
situation by making the features of a text explicit. Each of these components makes the study of
discourse explicit. Field of discourse refers to the activity that is going on and the purpose that
language is performing in context of the activity. Tenor of discourse refers to the interaction
among the participants especially the social relationship among them. Mode of discourse refers
to the role of language in communication particularly as a channel or medium of communication.
The mode can either be spoken or written.
Cohesion
Cohesion is the relations of meaning which exist within the text and justify it as a text. It is the
linguistic means by which a text functions as a single unit (Halliday and Hasan 1976: 4,
Osisanwo 2003/2005: 31). There are various elements that are used to tie up various sentences
210
together in a text; these elements are used to achieve cohesion. Cohesion is lexical and
grammatical unity within a text. Without cohesion, a text will not make meaning.
The elements that are used to achieve semantic unity in the text are called cohesive devices.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) identify five major types of cohesive devices: references,
substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. Each of these may further be subdivided.
Let us briefly look at them.
Reference
Reference is the relation between an element of a text and something else which refers to it for
interpretation in a given context. Words used as references do not have their own meaning; we
can only infer their meaning by referring to something else in the text. There are four major types
of reference. First, anaphoric is making reference to what has been said earlier in the text.
Second, cataphoric is the reference made to what will be said later in the text, that is, forward
referencing. Third, endophoricis reference within the text; it covers both anaphoric and
cataphoric. Fourth, exophoric is the reference to something outside the text.
Substitution
It is the replacing of a word, phrase or clause with a word in the next clause to avoid repetition.
For example:
Bunmi: I won scholarship to study in London.
Taju: I know it already.
The cohesive item “it” is used to replace the sentence made by Bunmi to avoid repeating it.
Ellipsis
It is the deletion of certain grammatical elements from a structure for cohesive purpose. Such
grammatical elements are referred to as redundant elements, but they can be uniquely recovered.
For example:
Janet: Did you see the money I left on the table?
James: No. (^)
Conjunction
Conjunctions are use to show relationship between clauses and sentences. They are cohesive
devices used to link two successive clauses or sentences. Halliday and Hasan (1976: 320-322)
state four specific conjunctive relations of ‘and’, ‘yet’, ‘so’ and ‘then’ which may occur either in
external or internal context. Other scholars mention additive, temporal, adversative, casual and
continuative relations of conjunction (Onadeko 2000:99).
Lexical cohesion
Lexical relationship exists when lexical items have a structural relationship. Lexical items are
used as a cohesive device when the features of words and group of words are used to create
relationships among the words. There are two types of lexical cohesion: reiteration and
collocation. Reiteration simply means doing or saying the same thing several times. It may be
done through the use of repetition, synonymy, hyponymy and antonymy. Collocation is the
211
relation of words that always occur together. Once the first item is mentioned, it is easy to mark
out what follows. For example: husband and ....
Coherence
Coherence is what enables a text to make sense to people. It does not exist in language but in
people. It is people who determine whether what they read makes sense or not because they try
to arrive at an interpretation which is line with their experience. It is possible for a text to make
sense without cohesive ties. Such text has coherence but lacks cohesion.
A: I am hungry.
B: There is no money.
C: I will wait.
The text above still makes sense despite that there are no cohesive ties to join them. Coherence
can be achieved through cause and effect, contiguity in time and space, and associatives.
Literary discourse
Literary discourse is a text with literary features. It may be dramatic, prosaic or poetic. Each of
the genres of literature has its peculiar stylistic features. Language is used as a vehicle for
literature because every literary work is presented in language either in oral or written form,
therefore, every literary work is a form of discourse. Stylistics has prepared a ground where
language and literature interact. Any literary discourse can be analyzed through any discourse
analytical approach to investigate how language is used by the writer in the social context
because literary writers write to communicate social, economic, political and religious issues in
their community to society as a whole.
Approaches to discourse analysis

There are various approaches which can be applied in doing analysis of discourse. These
approaches are both theoretical and methodical. Six of these approaches: pragmatics, speech
acts, semiotics, ethnography of communication,conversation analysis and interactional
sociolinguistics are examined briefly below.
Pragmatics
Pragmatics is the study of meaning of language use in context. It does not take cognisance of
formal properties of language construction which determine its grammaticality, but meaning
derived from how utterance is used and its relation and its relation to the social context in which
it is used. Origin of pragmatics was traced back to Morris (1938) who defined it as a branch of
semiotics (Schiffrin 1994: 191, Osisanwo 2003/2005: 49). Pragmatics is different from semantics
which is the study of meaning of language. It looks at the aspect of meaning and language use
that is dependent on the speaker and the listener (Wales 1989: 365, Yule 1996: 1). Anyone using
pragmatic approach to discourse intends to investigate meaning of language beyond the literal
212
meaning. He looks at the meaning in the context of discourse between the participants, that is,
communicative meaning.
Pragmatics has some basic principles that everyone familiar with it must know in order to apply
it. They are explained below.
Utterance and context: Utterance is a unit of discourse or speech. It is made in a context. Context
is all physical, social and cultural situations that surround discourse. Utterance must be
considered within its context before meaning can be derived.
Implicature: This is meaning or something implied in conversational context which is distinct
from what is said.
Entailment: It is logical implication. Entailments are deductions or inferences made from
utterances to help us interpret them successfully.
Presupposition: It is the background knowledge or belief shared by the participants in discourse
which makes themto understand the appropriate context of discourse.
Deixis: It is the use of reference items in utterances, and such items depend on the context of the
utterance. Common deictic words are ‘I, you, we, now, here, there, that etc. There are different
kinds of deixis which are: discourse deixis, personal deixis, place deixis, time deixis and social
deixis.
Speech acts
Speech acts theory began with the Oxford philosopher, J. L. Austin in the 1930s. It was
expounded as a series of William James lecture that Austin gave at Harvard University in 1955.
The series of the twelve lectures was published in 1962 with title How to Do Things with Words.
The crux of the theory is that people perform action when they make an utterance. He
distinguishes between performative utterances and constative utterances. Performative utterances
perform various acts such as declaring, ordering, confirming, denying offering, permitting,
advising, promising, thanking, condoling etc. Verbs are the strength of performative clauses.
Performative verbs are the verbs that perform the acts stated in the utterances. Some of them are:
authorize, order, advise, instruct, accept, name, declare, summon, sentence, sanction, apologize,
christen, convict, query, swear, reject etc. In some cases, these verbs go with ‘I hereby’ to
perform the act. For example, “I hereby declare you husband and wife.” Constative utterances
are those used in making statement or describing the state of affairs. It is believed that these
utterances do not perform acts because they are not performatives (Malmkjær and Anderson
1991: 416). He later included that issuing an utterance in a speech situation is the most important
factor (Austin 1962: 139).
There are two conditions underlying speech acts according to Austin; they are text (the utterance
made to perform an act) and context (what makes an utterance true or appropriate). It is the
context that determines whether an utterance is qualified to act in a particular situation. There are
213
certain conditions given to justify truthfulness or falsity of an utterance; they are called felicity
condition or truth condition. These conditions are given by J. R. Searle.
i. The speaker must be the person that is qualified to make certain utterance in a particular
occasion for the utterance to have effect. The participants must be appropriate people and the
circumstances must be appropriate also.
ii. All the participants must carry out the conventional procedure carefully completely while the
listener should carry out the appropriate action after the speech.
iii. All the participants must have what they are required to have by convention before they can
perform speech acts.
iv. The participants should be ready to do whatever they are required to do.
If these conditions are fulfilled, speech acts can then take place.
There are three major acts proposed by Austin and Searle: locutionary, illocutionary and
perlocutionary acts. Schiffrin (1994) declares that:
All utterances perform speech acts that are comprised of a
locutionary act (the production of sounds and words with
meanings), an illocutionary act (the issuing of an utterance with
conventional communicative force achieved “in saying”), and a
perlocutionary act (the actual effect achieved “by saying”). (51)
Kempson (1977) corroborates with them with his view that, “a speaker utters sentences with a
particular meaning (locutionary act) and with a particular force (illocutionary act) in order to
achieve a certain effect (perlocutionary act) on the hearer” (51). The two of them have a
convergent point on the three speech acts performed by the speaker through utterances which
are:
Locutionary act: production of a meaningful utterance,
Illocutionary act: an utterance issued with conventional communicative force achieved,
Perlocutionary act: the actual effect achieved y the utterance especially on the hearer.
Semiotics
The term semiotics originated from a Greek word semeiotikos which is concerned with the
observation signs. The adjective semiotic was coined by the English philosopher, John Locke, in
the early seventeenth century (Daramola 2001: 161). Semiotics is a discipline that deals with the
study and analysis of signs and symbols found in all forms of communication, that is, language
both spoken and written, gestures, clothing, billboards, human and animal behaviour. Charles
Sander Pierce and Ferdinand de Saussure contributed to semiotics at its formation stage. The
term semiology was coined by de Saussure, which he called the study of life of the sign in
society.
Semiotics is the study of communicative power of signs and codes. It is another approach to
discourse because human language is a system of signs and codes. Interlocutors often
214
communicate through special codes shared by certain group as a secret from those who are not
members of the group. The group members are able to analyze the codes and interpret the
message.
Saussure considers sign relation as dyadic, that is, the relationship between the sign and the
concept. This may also be called signifier and signified. The signifier is the sign given while the
signified is the referent of the sign. The three objects of semiosis are the sign, its object and its
interpretant. The interpretant stands between the sign and its object because he is the one who
analyzes the sign to relate it to the appropriate object in the physical entity. Pierce believes that
signs can be categorized into three classes in relation to their objects though the relationship is
arbitrary (Eco 1984: 136, Hookway 1985, Malmkjær and Anderson 1991: 400). They are iconic,
indexical and symbolic relationships.
Iconic relationship is a straight forward relationship between an icon and the object it denotes.
An icon is a sign which refers to the object it denotes either in figure, shape, colour, appearance
and other characteristics. For example, shape of a man represents human being.
Indexical relationship is when one thing denotes another thing entirely, but there is a relationship
of effect between the sign and the object. The gathered cloud is an index of expectation of rain.
Smoke is also an index of fire.
Symbolic relationship is purely arbitrary. There is no clear relationship between a symbol and its
object in real life. It is purely conventional. Symbols are tokens of types not the exact things.
Traffic light is conventionally related to its meaning where ‘red’ means ‘stop’; ‘yellow’ means
‘ready’ and ‘green’ means ‘go’. Symbols are not interpretable in sacrosanct manner. Colour red
that means stop in traffic light may mean danger or love in other contexts. Signs are interpretable
according to social conventions.
Ethnography of communication
Ethnography is a branch of anthropology which deals with descriptive study of living cultures. It
does not work on existing data or based on the outcome of previous researches. It breaks new
ground, gets fresh data through participant observations and interviews, and generates new
theory to explore how people think, believe and behave with each other in local time and space
(Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Third edition 2002).
It is applicable to linguistic study in the area of language learning and use to refer to the
observation and description of naturally occurring language, for example, between mother and
child especially where a strong cultural element is involved in the research.
Ethnography of communication is an approach to discourse analysis to study the place of

language in culture and society. It was developed by Hyme in his series of papers written in the
1960 and 1970s (Hyme 1974a: 20). It is an approach that is based on anthropology and
linguistics. It aims to analyze patterns of communication as part of cultural behaviour which
includes recognition of diversity possibility in communicative practices and realization of such
215
practices as part of our socio-cultural knowledge and behaviour. It creates a unified integrated
framework in which communication has a central role in both anthropological and linguistic
studies (Schiffrin 1994: 138). It is concerned with the study of ways of speaking in cultural
contexts. It is of the opinion that speakers of a language do not only have grammatical
competence of their language, but also as cultural members, they have communicative
competence. At the same time, they share cultural knowledge of the rules about how to interact
appropriately in every situation (van Dijk 1997: 25). The ethnographers of communication
analyze communicative patterns by using the method of participant observation in order to
discover how members of a culture know how to make, and how to communicate the
interpretation of the sense they make in their relationship through language. In a nutshell,
ethnography of communication investigates the place of language in culture and society, and
reflects the fact that culture itself encompasses totality of knowledge and practices in society.
Conversation analysis
Conversation is oral or spoken discourse which can be recorded for further studies. It is naturally
occurring utterances among participants in a social setting which follow the social rules of
organizing communication. It is actual social talk. Conversation analysis is an approach to
discourse from sociology which seeks to discover the methods that members of a society use to
produce a sense of social order, and conversation is a source of much of our social order
(Schiffrin 1994: 232). It is also called talk in interaction. It was introduced by Schegloff, Sacks
and Jefferson in the early 1970s. It is concerned with the problem of social order, that is, how
language creates social context, and how social context creates language. It is an approach to
discourse that lays emphasis on context, and the relevance of context is on text. It considers how
participants in a conversation construct systematic solutions to recurrent organizational problems
of talk, and the solutions come through the close analysis of the sequential progression of talk
(Schiffrin 1994: 273). The basic premises of conversation analysis are i. Language is a form of
social interaction; ii. conversational structures are rule-governed. It posits that verbal interactions
are both structurally organized and contextually oriented. It is the duty of the analysts to
elucidate the structures and determine how they are interrelated (Heritage 1984).
There are mechanisms to help in the organization of conversation. One of them is turn-taking,
which is the method of allocating floor in conversation. A person speaks at a time in
conversation and allows others to speak when his turn is over by giving a cue. It is the basic
characteristic of normal conversation which can be done either by appointing the next speaker or
the next speaker just take the floor without being appointed, or the current speaker continues if
the next speaker refuses to take the floor (Coulthard 1985: 59, Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson
1974: 704). Another one is adjacency pair which is a unit of conversation that contains two
utterances in adjacent produced by different speakers where they take one turn after another in a
sequence. The sequence may contain question and answer pair, greeting and response pair,
request and acceptance or rejection pair, apology and acceptance pair and so on. Each sequence
216
of the conversation has an opening, exchange and closing. There is also insertion sequence which
is a sequence of turns that intervenes the first and the second parts of the adjacency pair. It is
used as a delay tactics when people do not want to provide a direct response to an elicitation until
they are sure of what to say. There is also a repair mechanism employed when there is an error in
communication. There may also be overlapping which must be avoided.
Interactional sociolinguistics
Interactional sociolinguistics is an interpretative linguistic approach developed by John Gumperz
to analyze real time processes in face to face encounters (Gumperz 1982a: vii). He employs
contextualization cues which are signalling mechanisms of language and behaviour, both verbal
and non-verbal signs, that relate the utterance to the contextual knowledge, which contributes to
the presuppositions necessary for the inference of the meaning of the utterance (Gumperz 1984a:
12). The approach focuses on how people from different cultural backgrounds may share
grammatical knowledge of a language but contextualize what someone said differently in a way
that different messages are produced from it and understood. He views language as a socially and
culturally constructed symbol system that is in different ways reflect macro-level of social
meaning, that is, group identity and status difference, and create micro-level of social meaning,
that is, what a person is saying and doing at a particular moment. Speakers are members of
socio-cultural groups. The manner in which we use language reflects our group identity and
continues to reveal who we are; what we want to communicate and how we want to
communicate (Schiffrin 1994: 102). The focal points of Gumperz are culture, society, language,
the self and contextualization cue which relates to another two concepts: contextual
presupposition and situated inference.
Erving Goffman is another major contributor to the approach. He focuses on social interaction
which complements Gumperz situated inference instead of analysis of language. He describes
how language is situated in particular circumstances of social life, and how it affects the
circumstances. What he does is that he places language and other communicative sign systems in
the same social and interpersonal contexts which provide the presuppositions that gumperz finds
to be a crucial background for the interpretation of meaning.
The point of convergence between the two scholars is that they provide a unity to interactional
sociolinguistics by showing the interaction between self and others, and context. Gumperz
contribution on the first hand focuses on the critical nature of the interpretation of context to the
communication of information, and to another person’s understanding of aspeaker’s intention
and discourse strategy. Goffman contribution on the other hand focuses on how the organization
of social life provides contexts for both the conduct of self and communication with another
person to make sense. The two of them have been able to provide an approach to discourse
which focuses on situated meaning.
217
Discourse analysis has been treated in this chapter to familiarize learners with the meaning of the
concept with certain terminologies that relate to it and different approaches to the study of
discourse.
Works cited
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Berry, M. (1981). ‘Systemic Linguistics and Discourse Analysis: A Multi-layered Approach to
Exchange Structure.’ In Coulthard, M. and Montgomery (Eds.) Studies in Discourse
Analysis. London: Routledge.
Bloor, Thomas and Bloor, Meriel (1995). The Functional Analysis of English, A Halliday
Approach. London: Arnold.
Brown, G. And Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulthard, M. (1985). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. (New Edition) New York:
Longman.
Coulthard, M. (1992). Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Crystal, D. (1992). Introducing Linguistics.Harlow: Penguin.
Daramola, Adeyemi. (2001) ‘Text Linguistics.’ In Adeleke, A. F. and Osoba, G. O. (Eds.) The
English Compendium 1 and 2. Lagos: Dept. ofEnglish, LASU.
Daramola, Adeyemi. (2005). ‘Towards Understanding of Systemic Functional Theory (SFT) for
Teachers of English in Nigerian Secondary Schools.’ In Journal of the Nigerian English
Studies Association. Vol. 11. 1: 65-76.
Eco, V. (1984). Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. London: Macmillan.
Egbe, Daniel. (1996). Excellence in Written and Spoken English. Lagos: Tinson.
Fasold, R. (1990). Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gumperz, J. (1982a) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1961) ‘Categories of the Theory of Grammar.’ Word. 17: 241-292.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1967) ‘Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English. Parts1&2.’ Journal of
Linguistics. Vol. 3: 37-81.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1970). A Course in Spoken English Intonation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. England: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1985). Language, Context and Text: Aspect of Language in a
Social Semiotic Perspective.Deakin University Press.
Harris, Zellig. (1952). ‘Discourse Analysis.’ In Language. 28: 1-30.
Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. London: OUP.
Hookway, C. (1985). Pierce. London: Routledge.
Hyme, D. (1961). ‘Functions of Speech: The Evolutionary Approach.’ In Gruber, F. (Ed.)
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
218
Hyme, D. (1974a). ‘Towards Ethnography of Communication.’ In Foundation in

Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Jakobson, R. (1960). ‘Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.’ In Sebeok, T. (Ed.) Style in
Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kempson, R. (1977). Semiotic Theory. Cambridge: CUP.
Malmkjær, K. and Anderson, J.M. (1991). The Linguistics Encyclopedia. London: Routledge.
Morris, C. (1938). ‘Foundation of Theory of Signs.’ In Neurath, O., Carnap, R. and Morris, C.
(Eds.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Onadeko, T. (2000). ‘Discourse Analysis: The Fundamental.’ In Babjide, A. (Ed.) Studies in
English Language. Ibadan: Enicrownfit.
Osisanwo, W. (2003/2005). Introduction to Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics. Lagos:
Femolus-Fetop
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. (1974). ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organization
of Turn-Taking in Conversation.’ Language. 50: 696-735.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Searle, J. (1962). ‘What Is a Speech Act?’ In Black, M. (Ed.) Philosophy in America. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP.
Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by
Teachers and Pupils. London: OUP.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
vanDijk, T. (1997). ‘The Study of Discourse.’ In van Dijk, Teun (Ed.) Discourse as Structure
and Process, Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 1.
Wales, K. (1989). A Dictionary of Stylistics. London: Longman.
219

Introduction To Discourse Analysis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction To Discourse Analysis PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction To Discourse Analysis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENGLISH STUDIES IN FOCUS: READINGS IN LANGUAGE AND LITERATUTRE. E. A.

ADEDUN & YAW SEKYI-

INTRODUCTION TO DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Bola: I will take your bag to the party.

Charles: You need to be a good girl. You know.

Solomon: Where are you coming from?

Chukwu: Can you give me a cup of water?

Dad: Please shut the door.

Utterance and communicative acts

Approaches to discourse analysis

Ethnography of communication is an approach to discourse analysis to study the place of

Hyme, D. (1974a). ‘Towards Ethnography of Communication.’ In Foundation in

You might also like