Discourse analysis: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m →‎Prominent academics: Convert implied list into explicit list
References edited with ProveIt
Line 3: Line 3:
'''Discourse analysis''' ('''DA'''), or '''discourse studies''', is an approach to the analysis of written, vocal, or sign language use, or any significant [[semiotic]] event.
'''Discourse analysis''' ('''DA'''), or '''discourse studies''', is an approach to the analysis of written, vocal, or sign language use, or any significant [[semiotic]] event.


The objects of discourse analysis ([[discourse]], writing, conversation, communicative [[symbolic interactionism|event]]) are variously defined in terms of coherent sequences of [[sentence (linguistics)|sentences]], [[proposition]]s, [[speech acts|speech]], or [[Conversation Analysis#Turn-taking organization|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.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Discourse Analysis – What Speakers Do in Conversation {{!}} Linguistic Society of America|url = http://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/discourse-analysis-what-speakers-do-conversation|website = www.linguisticsociety.org|access-date = 2016-02-20}}</ref> [[Text linguistics]] is a closely related field. The essential difference between discourse analysis and text linguistics is that discourse analysis aims at revealing [[social psychology (sociology)|socio-psychological]] characteristics of a person/persons rather than text structure.<ref>[http://yatsko.zohosites.com/integrational-discourse-analysis-conception.html Yatsko V.A. Integrational discourse analysis conception]</ref>
The objects of discourse analysis ([[discourse]], writing, conversation, communicative [[symbolic interactionism|event]]) are variously defined in terms of coherent sequences of [[sentence (linguistics)|sentences]], [[proposition]]s, [[speech acts|speech]], or [[Conversation Analysis#Turn-taking organization|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.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/discourse-analysis-what-speakers-do-conversation |title=Discourse Analysis—What Speakers Do in Conversation |website=Linguistic Society of America |access-date=2019-11-25}}</ref> [[Text linguistics]] is a closely related field. The essential difference between discourse analysis and text linguistics is that discourse analysis aims at revealing [[social psychology (sociology)|socio-psychological]] characteristics of a person/persons rather than text structure.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://yatsko.zohosites.com/integrational-discourse-analysis-conception.html |title=Yatsko's Computational Linguistics Laboratory |website=yatsko.zohosites.com |access-date=2019-11-25}}</ref>


Discourse analysis has been taken up in a variety of disciplines in the [[humanities]] and [[social science]]s, 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]] and [[translation studies]], each of which is subject to its own assumptions, dimensions of analysis, and [[methodology|methodologies]].
Discourse analysis has been taken up in a variety of disciplines in the [[humanities]] and [[social science]]s, 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]] and [[translation studies]], each of which is subject to its own assumptions, dimensions of analysis, and [[methodology|methodologies]].
Line 12: Line 12:
===Early use of the term===
===Early use of the term===


The ancient Greeks (among others) had much to say on discourse; however, some scholars{{Which|date=February 2011}} consider Austria-born [[Leo Spitzer]]'s ''Stilstudien'' (''Style Studies'') of 1928 the earliest example of ''discourse analysis'' (DA). [[Michel Foucault]] translated it into French .<ref>{{cite web |url=https://progressivegeographies.com/2016/11/10/when-did-foucault-translate-leo-spitzer/.|title=When did Foucault translate Leo Spitzer?|date=2016-11-10}}</ref> However, the term first came into general use following the publication of a series of papers by [[Zellig Harris]] from 1952{{Citation needed|date=September 2019}} reporting on work from which he developed [[transformational grammar]] in the late 1930s. Formal equivalence 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.
The ancient Greeks (among others) had much to say on discourse; however, some scholars{{Which|date=February 2011}} consider Austria-born [[Leo Spitzer]]'s ''Stilstudien'' (''Style Studies'') of 1928 the earliest example of ''discourse analysis'' (DA). [[Michel Foucault]] translated it into French .<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://progressivegeographies.com/2016/11/10/when-did-foucault-translate-leo-spitzer/. |title=When did Foucault translate Leo Spitzer? |date=2016-11-10}}</ref> However, the term first came into general use following the publication of a series of papers by [[Zellig Harris]] from 1952{{Citation needed|date=September 2019}} reporting on work from which he developed [[transformational grammar]] in the late 1930s. Formal equivalence 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){{Citation needed|date=September 2019}} and a fully articulated theory of linguistic informational content (Harris 1991){{Citation needed|date=September 2019}}. During this time, however, most linguists ignored such developments in favor of a succession of elaborate theories of sentence-level syntax and semantics.<ref>[[John Corcoran (logician)|John Corcoran]], then a colleague of Harris in Linguistics at University of Pennsylvania, summarized and critically examined the development of Harris’s thought on discourse through 1969 in lectures attended by Harris’ colleagues and students in Philadelphia and Cambridge. Corcoran, John, 1972. "Harris on the Structures of Language", in ''Transformationelle Analyse'', ed. Senta Plötz, Athenäum Verlag, Frankfurt, 275–292.</ref>
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){{Citation needed|date=September 2019}} and a fully articulated theory of linguistic informational content (Harris 1991){{Citation needed|date=September 2019}}. During this time, however, most linguists ignored such developments in favor of a succession of elaborate theories of sentence-level syntax and semantics.<ref>[[John Corcoran (logician)|John Corcoran]], then a colleague of Harris in Linguistics at University of Pennsylvania, summarized and critically examined the development of Harris’s thought on discourse through 1969 in lectures attended by Harris’ colleagues and students in Philadelphia and Cambridge.<br/>
{{Cite journal |last=Corcoran |first=John |date=1972 |editor-last=Plötz |editor-first=Senta |title=Harris on the Structures of Language |journal=Transformationelle Analyse |publisher=Athenäum Verlag |publication-place=Frankfurt |pages=275–292}}</ref>


In January 1953, a linguist working for the American Bible Society, [[James A. Lauriault|James A. Lauriault/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 Summer Institute of Linguistics in Norman, Oklahoma, in the summers of 1956 and 1957 and entered the University of Pennsylvania to study with Harris in the interim year. He tried to publish a paper ''Shipibo Paragraph Structure'', but it was delayed until 1970 (Loriot & Hollenbach 1970).{{Citation needed|date=November 2013}} In the meantime, [[Kenneth Lee Pike]], a professor at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 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 [http://mlp-xml.sourceforge.net/ Medical Language Processor] is publicly available on [[SourceForge]].
In January 1953, a linguist working for the American Bible Society, [[James A. Lauriault|James A. Lauriault/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 Summer Institute of Linguistics in Norman, Oklahoma, in the summers of 1956 and 1957 and entered the University of Pennsylvania to study with Harris in the interim year. He tried to publish a paper ''Shipibo Paragraph Structure'', but it was delayed until 1970 (Loriot & Hollenbach 1970).{{Citation needed|date=November 2013}} In the meantime, [[Kenneth Lee Pike]], a professor at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 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 [http://mlp-xml.sourceforge.net/ Medical Language Processor] is publicly available on [[SourceForge]].
Line 22: Line 23:


===Foucault===
===Foucault===
In Europe, [[Michel Foucault]] became one of the key theorists of the subject, especially of discourse, and wrote [[The Archaeology of Knowledge]]. In this context, the term 'discourse' no longer refers to formal linguistic aspects, but to institutionalized patterns of knowledge that become manifest in disciplinary structures and operate by the connection of knowledge and power. Since the 1970s, Foucault's works have had an increasing impact especially on discourse analysis in the social sciences. Thus, in modern European social sciences, one can find a wide range of different approaches working with Foucault's definition of discourse and his theoretical concepts. Apart from the original context in France, there is, at least since 2005, a broad discussion on socio-scientific discourse analysis in Germany. Here, for example, the [[sociologist]] [[Reiner Keller]] developed his widely recognized '[[Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD)]]'.<ref>Keller, Reiner (2011): [https://link.springer.com/10.1007%2Fs10746-011-9175-z?LI=true&from=SL The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse] (SKAD), in: Human Studies 34 (1), 43–65.</ref> Following the [[sociology of knowledge]] by [[Peter L. Berger]] and [[Thomas Luckmann]], Keller argues, that our sense of reality in everyday life and thus the meaning of every object, actions and events are the product of a permanent, routinized interaction. In this context, SKAD has been developed as a scientific perspective that is able to understand the processes of '[[The Social Construction of Reality]]' on all levels of social life by combining Michel Foucault's theories of discourse and power with the theory of knowledge by Berger/Luckmann. Whereas the latter primarily focus on the constitution and stabilisation of knowledge on the level of interaction, Foucault's perspective concentrates on institutional contexts of the production and integration of knowledge, where the subject mainly appears to be determined by knowledge and power. Therefore, the 'Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse' can also be seen as an approach to deal with the vividly discussed [[structure and agency|micro–macro problem]] in sociology.{{Citation needed |date=November 2018}}
In Europe, [[Michel Foucault]] became one of the key theorists of the subject, especially of discourse, and wrote [[The Archaeology of Knowledge]]. In this context, the term 'discourse' no longer refers to formal linguistic aspects, but to institutionalized patterns of knowledge that become manifest in disciplinary structures and operate by the connection of knowledge and power. Since the 1970s, Foucault's works have had an increasing impact especially on discourse analysis in the social sciences. Thus, in modern European social sciences, one can find a wide range of different approaches working with Foucault's definition of discourse and his theoretical concepts. Apart from the original context in France, there is, at least since 2005, a broad discussion on socio-scientific discourse analysis in Germany. Here, for example, the [[sociologist]] [[Reiner Keller]] developed his widely recognized '[[Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD)]]'.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Keller |first=Reiner |date=March 2011 |title=The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD) |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10746-011-9175-z |journal=Human Studies |language=en |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=43–65 |doi=10.1007/s10746-011-9175-z |issn=0163-8548}}</ref> Following the [[sociology of knowledge]] by [[Peter L. Berger]] and [[Thomas Luckmann]], Keller argues, that our sense of reality in everyday life and thus the meaning of every object, actions and events are the product of a permanent, routinized interaction. In this context, SKAD has been developed as a scientific perspective that is able to understand the processes of '[[The Social Construction of Reality]]' on all levels of social life by combining Michel Foucault's theories of discourse and power with the theory of knowledge by Berger/Luckmann. Whereas the latter primarily focus on the constitution and stabilisation of knowledge on the level of interaction, Foucault's perspective concentrates on institutional contexts of the production and integration of knowledge, where the subject mainly appears to be determined by knowledge and power. Therefore, the 'Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse' can also be seen as an approach to deal with the vividly discussed [[structure and agency|micro–macro problem]] in sociology.{{Citation needed |date=November 2018}}


==Perspectives==
==Perspectives==
The following are some of the specific theoretical perspectives and analytical approaches used in linguistic discourse analysis:
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<ref>{{Cite journal|title = What is applied linguistics?|journal = International Journal of Applied Linguistics|date = 1993-06-01 |issn = 1473-4192 |pages = 17–32|volume = 3|issue = 1|doi = 10.1111/j.1473-4192.1993.tb00041.x |first = Carl |last = James}}</ref>
*[[Applied linguistics]], an interdisciplinary perspective on linguistic analysis<ref>{{Cite journal |last=James |first=Carl |date=June 1993 |title=What is applied linguistics? |url=http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1993.tb00041.x |journal=International Journal of Applied Linguistics |language=en |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=17–32 |doi=10.1111/j.1473-4192.1993.tb00041.x |issn=0802-6106}}</ref>
* [[Aron K. Barbey#Cognitive Neuroscience of Human Intelligence|Cognitive neuroscience of discourse comprehension]]<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Barbey |first1= Aron K.|last2= Colom |first2=Roberto |last3= Grafman |first3=Jordan |title= Neural mechanisms of discourse comprehension: a human lesion study|journal= Brain |volume= 137 |issue= 1 |pages= 277–287|doi= 10.1093/brain/awt312 |pmid=24293267|pmc= 3954106|year=2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1= Yates |first1=Diana|title= Researchers Map Brain Areas Vital to Understanding Language |url= http://news.illinois.edu/news/13/1121brain_language_AronBarbey.html|website=University of Illinois News Bureau |publisher= University of Illinois}}</ref>
* [[Aron K. Barbey#Cognitive Neuroscience of Human Intelligence|Cognitive neuroscience of discourse comprehension]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Barbey |first=Aron K. |last2=Colom |first2=Roberto |last3=Grafman |first3=Jordan |date=January 2014 |year=2014 |title=Neural mechanisms of discourse comprehension: a human lesion study |url=https://academic.oup.com/brain/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/brain/awt312 |journal=Brain |language=en |volume=137 |issue=1 |pages=277–287 |doi=10.1093/brain/awt312 |issn=1460-2156 |pmc=PMC3954106 |pmid=24293267}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/204693 |title=Researchers map brain areas vital to understanding language |last=Yates |first=Diana |website=news.illinois.edu |publisher=University of Illinois |language=en-US |access-date=2019-11-25}}</ref>
*[[Cognitive psychology]], studying the production and comprehension of discourse.
*[[Cognitive psychology]], studying the production and comprehension of discourse.
*[[Conversation analysis]]
*[[Conversation analysis]]
Line 53: Line 54:
A problem for the discourse analyst is to decide when a particular feature is relevant to the specification is required. A question many linguists ask is: "Are there general principles which will determine the relevance or nature of the specification?"{{Citation needed |date=November 2018}}
A problem for the discourse analyst is to decide when a particular feature is relevant to the specification is required. A question many linguists ask is: "Are there general principles which will determine the relevance or nature of the specification?"{{Citation needed |date=November 2018}}
==Topics of interest==
==Topics of interest==
Topics of discourse analysis include:<ref>{{Cite book|title = Critical Discourse Analysis|last = Van Dijk|first = Teun|year = |isbn = |location = |pages = 352–371}}</ref>
Topics of discourse analysis include:<ref>{{Cite book |url=http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/9780470753460 |title=The Handbook of Discourse Analysis |last=Van Dijk |first=Teun |date=2005-01-01 |publisher=Blackwell Publishers Ltd |isbn=978-0-470-75346-0 |editor-last=Schiffrin |editor-first=Deborah |location=Malden, Massachusetts, USA |pages=352–371 |language=en |chapter=Critical discourse analysis |doi=10.1002/9780470753460 |editor-last2=Tannen |editor-first2=Deborah |editor-last3=Hamilton |editor-first3=Heidi E.}}</ref>
* The various levels or dimensions of discourse, such as [[sounds]] ([[Intonation (linguistics)|intonation]], etc.), [[gestures]], [[syntax]], the [[lexicon]], [[Stylistics (linguistics)|style]], [[rhetoric]], [[Meaning (linguistic)|meanings]], [[speech acts]], moves, [[strategies]], turns, and other aspects of [[interaction]]
* The various levels or dimensions of discourse, such as [[sounds]] ([[Intonation (linguistics)|intonation]], etc.), [[gestures]], [[syntax]], the [[lexicon]], [[Stylistics (linguistics)|style]], [[rhetoric]], [[Meaning (linguistic)|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.)
*[[Genres]] of discourse (various types of discourse in politics, the media, education, science, business, etc.)
Line 76: Line 77:


===Political discourse===
===Political discourse===
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.<ref>{{Citation | last = Hult | first = F.M. | year = 2017 | contribution = Discursive approaches to policy | editor1-first = S.E.F. | editor1-last = Wortham | editor2-first = D | editor2-last = Kim | editor3-first = S | editor3-last = May | title = Discourse and education | pages = 111–21 | place = New York | publisher = Springer}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | last = Hult | first = F.M. | year = 2015 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=lOc_CQAAQBAJ | contribution = Making policy connections across scales using nexus analysis | editor1-first = F.M. | editor1-last = Hult | editor2-first = D.C | editor2-last = Johnson | title = Research methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide | pages = 217–31 | place = Malden, MA | publisher = Wiley| isbn = 9781118308387 }}.</ref>
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.<ref>{{Cite book |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-02243-7 |title=Discourse and Education |date=2017 |publisher=Springer International Publishing |isbn=978-3-319-02242-0 |editor-last=Wortham |editor-first=Stanton |location=Cham |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-02243-7 |editor-last2=Kim |editor-first2=Deoksoon |editor-last3=May |editor-first3=Stephen}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/905699853 |title=Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning: A Practical Guide |last=Hult |first=F.M. |publisher=Wiley |year=2015 |isbn=978-1-118-33984-8 |editor-last=Hult |editor-first=F.M. |edition=First edition |location=Chichester, West Sussex |pages=217–31 |chapter=Making policy connections across scales using nexus analysis |oclc=905699853 |editor-last2=Johnson |editor-first2=D.C}}.</ref>


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.<ref name= "co-operation.org">{{Citation | last1 = Johnson | first1 = David W. | last2 = Johnson | first2 = Roger T. | title = Civil Political Discourse in a Democracy: The Contribution of Psychology | date = May 2000| citeseerx = 10.1.1.459.5411 }}.</ref>
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.<ref name="co-operation.org">{{Cite journal |last=Johnson |first=David W. |last2=Johnson |first2=Roger T. |date=2000 |title=Civil political discourse in a democracy: The contribution of psychology |url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1207/S15327949PAC0604_01 |journal=Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology |language=en |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=291–317 |doi=10.1207/S15327949PAC0604_01 |issn=1532-7949}}</ref>


An example of an analysis of political discourse is Roffee's 2016 examination into speech acts surrounding the justification of the legislative processes concerning the Australian federal government's intervening in the Northern Territory Aboriginal communities. The intervention was a hasty reaction to a social problem. Through this analysis, Roffee established that there was, in fact, an unwillingness to respond on behalf of the government, and the intervention was, in fact, no more than another attempt to control the Indigenous population. However, due to the political rhetoric used, this was largely unidentified.<ref>{{cite journal |title= Rhetoric, Aboriginal Australians and the Northern Territory Intervention: A Socio-legal Investigation into Pre-legislative Argumentation | doi= 10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i1.285 | volume=5 | issue=1 | journal= International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy | page= 131 | year= 2016 | last1= Roffee | first1= James A.}}</ref>
An example of an analysis of political discourse is Roffee's 2016 examination into speech acts surrounding the justification of the legislative processes concerning the Australian federal government's intervening in the Northern Territory Aboriginal communities. The intervention was a hasty reaction to a social problem. Through this analysis, Roffee established that there was, in fact, an unwillingness to respond on behalf of the government, and the intervention was, in fact, no more than another attempt to control the Indigenous population. However, due to the political rhetoric used, this was largely unidentified.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Roffee |first=James A. |year=2016 |title=Rhetoric, Aboriginal Australians and the Northern Territory Intervention: A Socio-legal Investigation into Pre-legislative Argumentation |journal=International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy |volume=5 |issue=1 |page=131 |doi=10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i1.285}}</ref>


=== Corporate discourse ===
=== Corporate discourse ===
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).<ref>{{Cite book |title=Corporate discourse |last=Ruth |first= Breeze |isbn= 978-1-44112718-1 |location= London |oclc= 830837491 |date = 2013-10-10}}</ref>
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).<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/852898361 |title=Corporate Discourse |last=Breeze |first=Ruth |date=2013 |publisher=Bloomsbury Academic |isbn=978-1-4411-7753-7 |location=London |oclc=852898361}}</ref>


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 15:32, 25 November 2019

Discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies, is an approach to the analysis of written, vocal, or sign language use, or any significant semiotic event.

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 and translation studies, each of which is subject to its own assumptions, dimensions of analysis, and methodologies.

History

Early use of the term

The ancient Greeks (among others) had much to say on discourse; however, some scholars[which?] consider Austria-born Leo Spitzer's Stilstudien (Style Studies) of 1928 the earliest example of discourse analysis (DA). Michel Foucault translated it into French .[3] However, the term first came into general use following the publication of a series of papers by Zellig Harris from 1952[citation needed] reporting on work from which he developed transformational grammar in the late 1930s. Formal equivalence 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)[citation needed] and a fully articulated theory of linguistic informational content (Harris 1991)[citation needed]. During this time, however, most linguists ignored such developments in favor of a succession of elaborate theories of sentence-level syntax and semantics.[4]

In January 1953, a linguist working for the American Bible Society, James A. Lauriault/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 Summer Institute of Linguistics in Norman, Oklahoma, in the summers of 1956 and 1957 and entered the University of Pennsylvania to study with Harris in the interim year. He tried to publish a paper Shipibo Paragraph Structure, but it was delayed until 1970 (Loriot & Hollenbach 1970).[citation needed] In the meantime, Kenneth Lee Pike, a professor at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 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.

In the humanities

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, such as 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", which was influenced by the Sociologist Harold Garfinkel, the founder of Ethnomethodology.

Foucault

In Europe, Michel Foucault became one of the key theorists of the subject, especially of discourse, and wrote The Archaeology of Knowledge. In this context, the term 'discourse' no longer refers to formal linguistic aspects, but to institutionalized patterns of knowledge that become manifest in disciplinary structures and operate by the connection of knowledge and power. Since the 1970s, Foucault's works have had an increasing impact especially on discourse analysis in the social sciences. Thus, in modern European social sciences, one can find a wide range of different approaches working with Foucault's definition of discourse and his theoretical concepts. Apart from the original context in France, there is, at least since 2005, a broad discussion on socio-scientific discourse analysis in Germany. Here, for example, the sociologist Reiner Keller developed his widely recognized 'Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD)'.[5] Following the sociology of knowledge by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, Keller argues, that our sense of reality in everyday life and thus the meaning of every object, actions and events are the product of a permanent, routinized interaction. In this context, SKAD has been developed as a scientific perspective that is able to understand the processes of 'The Social Construction of Reality' on all levels of social life by combining Michel Foucault's theories of discourse and power with the theory of knowledge by Berger/Luckmann. Whereas the latter primarily focus on the constitution and stabilisation of knowledge on the level of interaction, Foucault's perspective concentrates on institutional contexts of the production and integration of knowledge, where the subject mainly appears to be determined by knowledge and power. Therefore, the 'Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse' can also be seen as an approach to deal with the vividly discussed micro–macro problem in sociology.[citation needed]

Perspectives

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

A problem for the discourse analyst is to decide when a particular feature is relevant to the specification is required. A question many linguists ask is: "Are there general principles which will determine the relevance or nature of the specification?"[citation needed]

Topics of interest

Topics of discourse analysis include:[9]

Prominent academics

Political discourse

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.[10][11]

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.[12]

An example of an analysis of political discourse is Roffee's 2016 examination into speech acts surrounding the justification of the legislative processes concerning the Australian federal government's intervening in the Northern Territory Aboriginal communities. The intervention was a hasty reaction to a social problem. Through this analysis, Roffee established that there was, in fact, an unwillingness to respond on behalf of the government, and the intervention was, in fact, no more than another attempt to control the Indigenous population. However, due to the political rhetoric used, this was largely unidentified.[13]

Corporate discourse

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).[14]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Discourse Analysis—What Speakers Do in Conversation". Linguistic Society of America. Retrieved 2019-11-25.
  2. ^ "Yatsko's Computational Linguistics Laboratory". yatsko.zohosites.com. Retrieved 2019-11-25.
  3. ^ "When did Foucault translate Leo Spitzer?". 2016-11-10.
  4. ^ John Corcoran, then a colleague of Harris in Linguistics at University of Pennsylvania, summarized and critically examined the development of Harris’s thought on discourse through 1969 in lectures attended by Harris’ colleagues and students in Philadelphia and Cambridge.
    Corcoran, John (1972). Plötz, Senta (ed.). "Harris on the Structures of Language". Transformationelle Analyse. Frankfurt: Athenäum Verlag: 275–292.
  5. ^ Keller, Reiner (March 2011). "The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD)". Human Studies. 34 (1): 43–65. doi:10.1007/s10746-011-9175-z. ISSN 0163-8548.
  6. ^ James, Carl (June 1993). "What is applied linguistics?". International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 3 (1): 17–32. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.1993.tb00041.x. ISSN 0802-6106.
  7. ^ Barbey, Aron K.; Colom, Roberto; Grafman, Jordan (January 2014). "Neural mechanisms of discourse comprehension: a human lesion study". Brain. 137 (1): 277–287. doi:10.1093/brain/awt312. ISSN 1460-2156. PMC 3954106. PMID 24293267.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  8. ^ Yates, Diana. "Researchers map brain areas vital to understanding language". news.illinois.edu. University of Illinois. Retrieved 2019-11-25.
  9. ^ Van Dijk, Teun (2005-01-01). "Critical discourse analysis". In Schiffrin, Deborah; Tannen, Deborah; Hamilton, Heidi E. (eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, Massachusetts, USA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. pp. 352–371. doi:10.1002/9780470753460. ISBN 978-0-470-75346-0.
  10. ^ Wortham, Stanton; Kim, Deoksoon; May, Stephen, eds. (2017). Discourse and Education. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02243-7. ISBN 978-3-319-02242-0.
  11. ^ Hult, F.M. (2015). "Making policy connections across scales using nexus analysis". In Hult, F.M.; Johnson, D.C (eds.). Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning: A Practical Guide (First edition ed.). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley. pp. 217–31. ISBN 978-1-118-33984-8. OCLC 905699853. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help).
  12. ^ Johnson, David W.; Johnson, Roger T. (2000). "Civil political discourse in a democracy: The contribution of psychology". Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology. 6 (4): 291–317. doi:10.1207/S15327949PAC0604_01. ISSN 1532-7949.
  13. ^ Roffee, James A. (2016). "Rhetoric, Aboriginal Australians and the Northern Territory Intervention: A Socio-legal Investigation into Pre-legislative Argumentation". International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. 5 (1): 131. doi:10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i1.285.
  14. ^ Breeze, Ruth (2013). Corporate Discourse. London: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-4411-7753-7. OCLC 852898361.

External links