See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343214812
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Chapter · September 2015
CITATION READS
1 137,937
2 authors:
Ikenna Kamalu Ayo Osisanwo
University of Port Harcourt University of Ibadan
38 PUBLICATIONS 76 CITATIONS 31 PUBLICATIONS 134 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Online deception: A multimodal discourse analysis of online investment schemes in Nigeria View project
Research View project
, 169 ▪ Issues in the Study of Language and Literature: Theory & Practice
All content following this page was uploaded by Ayo Osisanwo on 25 July 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
CHAPTER
8
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Ikenna Kamalu & Ayo Osisanwo
Introduction
Discourse analysis (DA) is a broad field of study that draws some of its
theories and methods of analysis from disciplines such as linguistics,
sociology, philosophy and psychology. More importantly, discourse
analysis has provided models and methods of engaging issues that
emanate from disciplines such as education, cultural studies,
communication and so on. The vast nature of discourse analysis makes
it impossible for us to discuss all that the reader needs to know about it
in an introductory work of this nature. However, the chief aim of this
chapter is to introduce the reader to some of the basic terms and
concepts involved in discourse analysis. The reader is also introduced to
some of the approaches to linguistic study of discourse.
What is Discourse Analysis?
The term ‘discourse analysis’ was first used by the sentence linguist,
Zellig Harris in his 1952 article entitled ‘Discourse Analysis’. According
to him, discourse analysis is a method for the analysis of connected
speech or writing, for continuing descriptive linguistics beyond the limit
of a simple sentence at a time (Harris 1952). Meanwhile, scholars have
attested to the difficulty in coming up with a comprehensive and
acceptable definition for discourse analysis. However, a way to simplify
the attempt to define discourse analysis is to say that discourse analysis
is ‘the analysis of discourse’. The next question, therefore, would be
‘what is discourse?’
169
, Discourse can simply be seen as language in use (Brown & Yule 1983;
Cook 1989). It therefore follows that discourse analysis is the analysis of
language in use. By ‘language in use’, we mean the set of norms,
preferences and expectations which relate language to context.
Discourse analysis can also be seen as the organization of language
above the sentence level. The term ‘text’ is, sometimes, used in place
of ‘discourse’. The concern of discourse analysis is not restricted to the
study of formal properties of language; it also takes into consideration
what language is used for in social and cultural contexts. Discourse
analysis, therefore, studies the relationship between language (written,
spoken – conversation, institutionalized forms of talk) and the contexts
in which it is used. What matters is that the text is felt to be coherent.
Guy Cook (1989:6-7) describes discourse as language in use or language
used to communicate something felt to be coherent which may, or may
not correspond to a correct sentence or series of correct sentences.
Discourse analysis, therefore, according to him, is the search for what
gives discourse coherence. He posits that discourse does not have to be
grammatically correct, can be anything from a grunt or simple expletive,
through short conversations and scribbled notes, a novel or a lengthy
legal case. What matters is not its conformity to rules, but the fact that
it communicates and is recognized by its receivers as coherent.
Similarly, Stubbs (1983:1) perceives discourse analysis as ‘a
conglomeration of attempts to study the organization of language and
therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational
exchanges or written text.’ Again, we affirm that what matters in the
study of discourse, whether as language in use or as language beyond
the clause, is that language is organized in a coherent manner such that
it communicates something to its receivers.
Discourse analysis evolved from works in different disciplines in the
1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, anthropology,
psychology and sociology. Some of the scholars and the works that
either gave birth to, or helped in the development of discourse analysis
include the following: J.L. Austin whose How to Do Things with Words
(1962) introduced the popular social theory, speech-act theory. Dell
Hymes (1964) provided a sociological perspective with the study of
speech. John Searle (1969) developed and improved on the work of
Austin. The linguistic philosopher, M.A.K. Halliday greatly influenced the
linguistic properties of discourses (e.g. Halliday 1961), and in the 1970s
he provided sufficient framework for the consideration of the functional
approach to language (e.g. Halliday 1973). H.P. Grice (1975) and
Halliday (1978) were also influential in the study of language as social
action reflected in the formulation of conversational maxims and the
emergence of social semiotics. The work of Sinclair and Coulthard
(1975) also developed a model for the description of teacher-pupil talk.
The study grew to be a
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Chapter · September 2015
CITATION READS
1 137,937
2 authors:
Ikenna Kamalu Ayo Osisanwo
University of Port Harcourt University of Ibadan
38 PUBLICATIONS 76 CITATIONS 31 PUBLICATIONS 134 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Online deception: A multimodal discourse analysis of online investment schemes in Nigeria View project
Research View project
, 169 ▪ Issues in the Study of Language and Literature: Theory & Practice
All content following this page was uploaded by Ayo Osisanwo on 25 July 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
CHAPTER
8
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Ikenna Kamalu & Ayo Osisanwo
Introduction
Discourse analysis (DA) is a broad field of study that draws some of its
theories and methods of analysis from disciplines such as linguistics,
sociology, philosophy and psychology. More importantly, discourse
analysis has provided models and methods of engaging issues that
emanate from disciplines such as education, cultural studies,
communication and so on. The vast nature of discourse analysis makes
it impossible for us to discuss all that the reader needs to know about it
in an introductory work of this nature. However, the chief aim of this
chapter is to introduce the reader to some of the basic terms and
concepts involved in discourse analysis. The reader is also introduced to
some of the approaches to linguistic study of discourse.
What is Discourse Analysis?
The term ‘discourse analysis’ was first used by the sentence linguist,
Zellig Harris in his 1952 article entitled ‘Discourse Analysis’. According
to him, discourse analysis is a method for the analysis of connected
speech or writing, for continuing descriptive linguistics beyond the limit
of a simple sentence at a time (Harris 1952). Meanwhile, scholars have
attested to the difficulty in coming up with a comprehensive and
acceptable definition for discourse analysis. However, a way to simplify
the attempt to define discourse analysis is to say that discourse analysis
is ‘the analysis of discourse’. The next question, therefore, would be
‘what is discourse?’
169
, Discourse can simply be seen as language in use (Brown & Yule 1983;
Cook 1989). It therefore follows that discourse analysis is the analysis of
language in use. By ‘language in use’, we mean the set of norms,
preferences and expectations which relate language to context.
Discourse analysis can also be seen as the organization of language
above the sentence level. The term ‘text’ is, sometimes, used in place
of ‘discourse’. The concern of discourse analysis is not restricted to the
study of formal properties of language; it also takes into consideration
what language is used for in social and cultural contexts. Discourse
analysis, therefore, studies the relationship between language (written,
spoken – conversation, institutionalized forms of talk) and the contexts
in which it is used. What matters is that the text is felt to be coherent.
Guy Cook (1989:6-7) describes discourse as language in use or language
used to communicate something felt to be coherent which may, or may
not correspond to a correct sentence or series of correct sentences.
Discourse analysis, therefore, according to him, is the search for what
gives discourse coherence. He posits that discourse does not have to be
grammatically correct, can be anything from a grunt or simple expletive,
through short conversations and scribbled notes, a novel or a lengthy
legal case. What matters is not its conformity to rules, but the fact that
it communicates and is recognized by its receivers as coherent.
Similarly, Stubbs (1983:1) perceives discourse analysis as ‘a
conglomeration of attempts to study the organization of language and
therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational
exchanges or written text.’ Again, we affirm that what matters in the
study of discourse, whether as language in use or as language beyond
the clause, is that language is organized in a coherent manner such that
it communicates something to its receivers.
Discourse analysis evolved from works in different disciplines in the
1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, anthropology,
psychology and sociology. Some of the scholars and the works that
either gave birth to, or helped in the development of discourse analysis
include the following: J.L. Austin whose How to Do Things with Words
(1962) introduced the popular social theory, speech-act theory. Dell
Hymes (1964) provided a sociological perspective with the study of
speech. John Searle (1969) developed and improved on the work of
Austin. The linguistic philosopher, M.A.K. Halliday greatly influenced the
linguistic properties of discourses (e.g. Halliday 1961), and in the 1970s
he provided sufficient framework for the consideration of the functional
approach to language (e.g. Halliday 1973). H.P. Grice (1975) and
Halliday (1978) were also influential in the study of language as social
action reflected in the formulation of conversational maxims and the
emergence of social semiotics. The work of Sinclair and Coulthard
(1975) also developed a model for the description of teacher-pupil talk.
The study grew to be a
