Discourse analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Political discourse analysis)
Jump to: navigation, search

Discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies, is a general term for a number of approaches to analyze 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, and not invented examples. Text linguistics is related. The essential difference between discourse analysis and text linguistics is that it aims at revealing socio-psychological characteristics of a person/persons rather than text structure.[1]

Discourse analysis has been taken up in a variety of social science disciplines, including linguistics, education, sociology, anthropology, social work, cognitive psychology, social psychology, area studies, cultural studies, international relations, human geography, communication studies, and translation studies, each of which is subject to its own assumptions, dimensions of analysis, and methodologies.

Topics of interest[edit]

Topics of discourse analysis include:

Political discourse[edit]

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.

Political discourse is the informal exchange of reasoned views as to which of several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve a societal problem.[2]


Although the ancient Greeks (among others) had much to say on discourse, some scholars[which?] consider the Austrian emigre Leo Spitzer's Stilstudien [Style Studies] of 1928 the earliest example of discourse analysis (DA). It was translated into French by Michel Foucault.

However, the term first came into general use following the publication of a series of papers by Zellig Harris beginning in 1952 and 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) and a fully articulated theory of linguistic informational content (Harris 1991). During this time, however, most linguists ignored these developments in favor of a succession of elaborate theories of sentence-level syntax and semantics.[3]

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, Dr. 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 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.

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)'.[4] 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 objects, 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.

Theoretical Principles of Discourse Analysis[edit]

The approach of analysis developed in discourse analysis and discursive psychology has been partly a product of the conception of human action. This conception emphasis the following features:

  • ACTION ORIENTATION – Discourse is the primary medium of human action and interaction. Actions are not merely free standing but are typically embedded in broader practices. Some actions are Generic (e.g. Making invitation) and some are specific to the settings ( e.g. Air traffic control management of flight crew). Action orientation discourages the expectation that analysis discovers a one to one relationship between discrete acts and certain verbs.
  • SITUATION – There are altogether three senses in which discourse is situated. First is the sequential organization so that the basic environment of what is being said is what has been said just before that, but this setup does not determine what is next to come. Second is the institutional location in which the tasks and identities of institution are relevant to what takes place. Third, it can be situated rhetorically, such that the descriptions may resist actual or potential attempts to counter them as interested.
  • CONSTRUCTION – Discourse is constructive as well as constructed. It is constructed from various resources such as words, categories, commonplace ideas and broader explanatory systems. It is constructive in the sense that versions of the world, of events and actions, and of people’s phenomenological worlds are built and stabilized in talk in the course of action. A person may explain not making an urgent call intentionally by saying that the number was unreachable or of his own faulty cognitive processing.

Although these principles appear to be abstract but these are developed through analytical as well as theoretical practices. Rather than being the start, action orientation is often the endpoint of analysis. In action orientation to understand what is going on it is important to understand the talk in terms of the way it is situated. The rhetorical character of the talk is one of the features of discourse that is to be revealed through analysis.

Questions Discourse Researchers Ask[edit]

Discourse researchers ask various questions that are uncommon in the field of psychology and reflect the understanding of interactions present in the theoretical principles of the field. Discourse work is not designed to answer questions of the kind, “What is the influence of X on Y”. Discourse work typically asks questions of the form, “How is X done?” Discourse work basically focuses on the type of questions that lead to a focus on interaction and not cognition, a focus on actual settings instead of abstract scenarios and a focus on the ongoing processes and not their outcomes. General themes of Discourse work:

  • Fact and evaluation: The work focuses on questions that involve description, factuality and evaluation. This includes the central critical theme of the discourse work i.e., the issue of racism and discrimination. The work considers the process of construction in talk and its accomplishment rather than abstract understandings of construction and constructionism in psychology.
  • Constructions of Psychology: The work focuses on the usage of psychological terms and notions in practical settings. The extent of re-specification of the basic stuff of psychology in terms of practices within specific contexts is a challenge.
  • Gender, Psychology and Feminism: Under this, the major focus of the work is on a range of issues related to gender and sexism. This also includes areas related to exploration of the relationship between conversation analysis and discursive psychology (e.g. With respect of “saying no” to sex) and considering the treatment of gender as fundamentally relevant to interaction.
  • Practices in work or Institutional settings: Discourse work also focuses on interaction as a part of the broader organization of the activities in a particular setting which may include therapy, medical consultations, classrooms, courtrooms, police or air traffic control rooms, etc. In this area both conversation analysis and the combining analysis of vocal and non-vocal elements of interaction have made powerful contributions and developments at analytical as well as theoretical levels.
  • Psychologists’ own work practices: The research practices of psychologists themselves is also a focus of this work. Some of the questions are targeted to guide the participants’ response style such as – how are interactional troubles managed in survey interviews, how are questions constructed in market research focus groups or in open ended interviews to fit standardized response categories.

Although discourse research is split into particular themes, they overlap with each other in practice.[5]

Preparing For Analysis[edit]

Before any analysis can be started the researcher has to collect materials and prepare them for study.

Analytic Materials[edit]

Discourse researchers work with a range of materials. Although there is considerable disagreement about the virtues of different sorts of material, there has always been a general move away from open-ended interviews and focus groups to consideration of naturalistic materials and texts. The one feature all of these materials have - they involve interaction that can be recorded, transcribed, and analysed. For much of 1980’s and early 1990’s, open ended conversational interviews were the principle research materials. The tape-recorded interviews are the most preferred, conversation organized around a schedule of topics developed in relationship to the researcher’s concerns. Unlike traditional survey interviews, the aim is to provide a conversational environment to observe certain practices and discursive to identify the resources drawn on in those practices rather than neutrally access information outside the interview. For example, in Billig’s (1992) study of political ideology the researcher was interested in the way his participants (family groups in the United Kingdom) dealt with issues that raised questions about the legitimacy of British political arrangements. He considered the resources- repertoires of explanation, rhetorical commonplaces-that research participants drew on to sustain that legitimacy against threat. Because of this aim, interviews in discourse work tend to be argumentative and active. Interviews in discourse analysis have a range of virtues.

  • Focus: Interviews allow the researcher to concentrate on certain predetermined themes and questions can thus be ordered to provoke participants into using a wide range of their discursive resources.
  • Standardization: In interviews all the participants are provided with the opportunity to address the same set of themes (not withstanding the contingency of conversation)
  • Control: Interviews let considerable control over sampling. It eases issues of permissions and recording.

There are a number of disadvantages as well. They are:

  • Psychological expectations: A major disadvantage in interviews is flooding the interaction with psychological categories and expectations. The research will have to deal with participants’ orientation to the interview organization and their speaking position as group representative. Such orientations can productively become an analytical focus in their own right (See Widdecombe and Wooffitt, 1995): more frequently there is a tension between the interview as an activity and as a pathway to something else.
  • Abstraction: Interviews abstract participants from the stake and interest they typically have and the settings in which they live their lives and what is going on. They support participants to take action as theorists rather than actors.
  • Relative value: If the researcher is interested in a particular setting, relationship counselling, for example, and when there is access and the analytical resources to study it, why restrict oneself to people’s abstract talk about it?

Naturalistic materials have become central because of their intrinsic interest than because of shortcomings in the interviews. They are highly varied. They could be video or audio tapes of flight crew conversation, social worker assessment interviews, relationship counselling sessions, everyday telephone conversation between friends and so on. The range of advantages they have are:

  • Actuality: The thing that is being studied directly is documented by Naturalistic materials. If the researcher is concerned with counselling on an abuse helpline then counselling is studied. (Not theorizing about counselling, reports of counselling, conventionalized memories of counselling and so on) There is no extrapolation from something else involved.
  • Action orientation: Such materials makes it easier to capture the action oriented and situated nature of talk. Embedded in the sequences of interaction, actions are studied. However subtle the analysis, the disruption of such embedding in interviews is likely to lead to analytical difficulties.
  • Orientation to setting: Materials of this kind make it much possible to study participant’s orientations to institutions and settings. It is hard to see how one could look at the detail construction of the counsellor’s questions in the abuse helpline without using actual recordings from that helpline. Rather than persons and their abstract cognitive capacities research with naturalistic materials becomes more easily centered on situated practices.

Naturalistic materials often present particular problems of access and ethics, and raise issues of reactivity. Nevertheless, perhaps one of the most novel and potentially useful contributions that discourse work can make to psychology is providing a method for collecting, managing, and analyzing naturalistic materials.

Recording and Transcription[edit]

The major insights of the conversation analyst Harvey Sacks (1992) is the significance of conversational specifics- pauses, delay, lexical choice, intonation, repair and so on. Rather than seeing such detail as noise blurring the clarity of an underlying signal, Sacks highlighted its key role in interaction. Speakers are enormously attentive to the specifics of interaction.

Discourse research has been facilitated by the steady improvement of technology in the past two decades. Minidisk recorders are compact and reliable and can capture more than 2 hours of very high quality mono using a flat microphone that is suited for picking up speech. Video recorders have likewise become a cheap and compact possibility. Video presents certain analytical challenges and is more obtrusive, but it can provide important information that audio lacks, particularly where the interaction involves important embodied actions. Digital records make the process of transcribing and managing the materials more flexible and much simpler. Audio and video software allow records to be easily searched, copied, and edited. They also have the capability of disguising voice quality and faces and for eliminating identifying particulars such as names. This is crucial for maintaining anonymity, particularly with sensitive materials. Various systems are available for transcribing talk. However, discourse researchers have opted to use the system developed by the conversation analyst Gail Jefferson in the 1960s and 1970s. This has the virtues of being relatively intuitive and most importantly, being quick to learn, highlighting features of talk that have been shown to be interactionally important such as intonation and overlap. To work with two windows on a computer screen is the simplest way to transcribe, one running the audio file, the other running the word processor. Audio programs are available that permit a stepwise movement through the file using a physical representation of the wave from that is ideal for timing pauses and noting overlap.

Transcription is time consuming and demanding. It can take around or more than 20 hours to produce a decent transcript of an hour of interaction. It is much more time consuming if the interaction is complex or the recording is of poor quality. The transcription involves a very careful listening to the material- for this reason it is suggested that researchers do at least some of their own transcription. Transcription is highly transportable and it simplifies the process of analysis. It is the prime medium for presenting material in publication, although the web will increasingly be used to combine audio materials with written articles. Transcripts inevitably have limitations and should be used in combination with the original audio records.[6]

Stages Of Analysis[edit]

Analysis in discourse research is highly varied and depends to some extent on the nature of the supplies that are available and how developed on the nature of the materials that are available and how developed research is on the topic or setting of interest. The following are the four stages that are overlapping but broadly distinct.

  • Generating hypotheses:Discourse research is not hypothesis-based, as is common elsewhere in psychology. Sometimes a researcher comes to some materials with a broad set of concerns or questions. The first part of the discourse research is often the generation of more specific questions or hypothesis or the noticing of intriguing or troubling phenomena. Discourse researchers often make analytical notes as they transcribe. It is common and productive to continue this open-ended approach to the data in group sessions where a number of researchers listen to a segment of interaction and explore different ways of understanding what is going on.
  • Coding: The building of collection. The main aim of coding is to make the analysis more straightforward by sifting relevant materials from larger corpus. It involves searching materials for some phenomena of interest and copying the instances to an archive. This is likely to be a set of extracts from sound files and their associated transcripts. Often phenomena that were initially seen as disparate merge while phenomena that seemed singular become broken into different varieties. Problem or doubtful instances will be included in the coding- they may become most analytically productive when considering deviant cases.
  • Doing the Analysis:Analysis does not follow a fixed set of steps. The procedure used is related to the type of materials used and the sorts of questions being asked. This contrasts is too many styles of psychological research where the justification of the research findings depend on following a set of steps in a precise and orderly manner. In discourse research the procedures for justification are partly separate from the procedure for arriving at analytical claims. The research will typically develop conjectures about activities through a close reading of the materials and then check the adequacy of these hypotheses through working with a corpus of coded materials. To establish the relevance of these features for the activity being done, one would do a number of things:

Search for patterns – Looking through our corpus to see how regular pattern is. If such a pattern is not common, then our speculation will start to look weak. We might find additional fine-grained organizations. •Consider next turns – The hypothesis is that the counsellor’s turn in designed in the way that it is to head off potential problems with what comes next. If next turns typically, handling has to be smooth, then support should be provided. In general, in discourse work the sequential organization of interaction is a powerful resource for understanding what is going on. •Focus on deviant cases – These might be ones in which very different question constructions were used; or where surprising next turns appeared. Such cases are analytically rich. •Focus on other kinds of material – There is an infinite set of alternative materials that might be used for comparison.

  • Validating the analysis:There is no clear cut distinction between validation procedures and analytical procedures in discourse work; indeed some of the analytical themes are also differently understood, involved in validation. It is always useful in highlighting some of the major elements involved in validating claims.

Participants' Orientation[edit]

The importance of the turn-by-turn nature of interaction has already been emphasized in the analytical section earlier. Any turn of talk is oriented to what came before, and sets up the environment for what comes next. Close attention to this turn-by-turn display of understanding provides one important check on analytical interpretations.

Deviant Cases[edit]

Deviant cases are often the most analytically and theoretically informative. They can show whether a generalizations is robust or breaks down. There are occasional deviant cases, however where an interviewer is treated as responsible for some view. However, rather than showing that this pattern is not normative, these deviations are the exceptions that proves the rule.


The accumulation of findings from different studies allows new studies to be assessed for their coherence with what comes before. For example, the work on the organization of food assessment in mealtime conversations, builds on and provides additional confirmation of earlier work assessments and compliments.

Readers Evaluation[edit]

One of the most fundamental features of discourse research is that its claims are accountable to the detail of the empirical materials and that the empirical materials are presented in a form that allows readers to make their own checks and judgements. Discourse articles present a range of extracts from the transcripts alongside the interpretations that have been made of them. Any study that cannot deal with deviant cases, that is out of line with previous research, cannot effectively show participant’s own orientation to a phenomenon and that fails to offer convincing interpretations of reproduced extracts is unlikely to be worth serious consideration.[7]


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. Are there general principles which will determine the relevance or nature of the specification.[10]

See also[edit]

Further reading[edit]

  1. ^ Yatsko V.A. Integrational discourse analysis conception
  2. ^ Johnson, David w. Johnson, Roger T. “Civil Political Discourse in a Democracy: The Contribution Of Psychology”. May 2000. www.co-operation.org/pages/contro-pol.html.
  3. ^ 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.
  4. ^ Keller, Reiner (2011): The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD), in: Human Studies 34 (1), 43-65.
  5. ^ [Bryman, A. (n.d.). Discourse Analysis and Discursive Psychology. In Qualitative Research 2 (Vol. 4, pp. 292-297). Sage Publications.]
  6. ^ [Bryman, A. (n.d.). Discourse Analysis and Discursive Psychology. In Qualitative Research 2 (Vol. 4, pp. 297-300). Sage Publications.]
  7. ^ [Bryman, A. (n.d.). Discourse Analysis and Discursive Psychology. In Qualitative Research 2 (Vol. 4, pp. 300-305). Sage Publications.]
  8. ^ Barbey, Aron K.; Colom, Roberto; Grafman, Jordan. "Neural mechanisms of discourse comprehension: a human lesion study". Brain 137 (1): 277–287. doi:10.1093/brain/awt312. 
  9. ^ Yates, Diana. "Researchers Map Brain Areas Vital to Understanding Language". University of Illinois News Bureau. University of Illinois. 
  10. ^ Gillian Brown "discourse Analysis"
  • Bhatia, V.J. (1993) Analysing Genre: Language in Professional Settings. England: Longman.
  • Bhatia, V.J. (2004) Worlds of Written Discourse. London: Continuum.
  • Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, G., and George Yule (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Carter, R. (1997). Investigating English Discourse. London: Routledge.
  • Corcoran, J. (1971). Discourse Grammars and the Structure of Mathematical Reasoning I, II, and III, Journal of Structural Learning 3.
  • Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge.
  • Deese, James. Thought into Speech: The Psychology of a Language.Century Psychology Series. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1984.
  • Halliday, M.A.K., and Greaves, W.S. (2008). Intonation in the Grammar of English, London, Equinox.
  • Halliday, M.A.K., and C.M.I.M. Matthiessen (2004). An introduction to functional grammar, 3d ed. London, Arnold
  • Harris, Zellig S. (1952a). "Culture and Style in Extended Discourse". Selected Papers from the 29th International Congress of Americanists (New York, 1949), vol.III: Indian Tribes of Aboriginal America ed. by Sol Tax & Melville J[oyce] Herskovits, 210-215. New York: Cooper Square Publishers. (Repr., New York: Cooper Press, 1967. Paper repr. in 1970a, pp. 373–389.) [Proposes a method for analyzing extended discourse, with example analyses from Hidatsa, a Siouan language spoken in North Dakota.]
  • Harris, Zellig S. (1952b.) "Discourse Analysis". Language 28:1.1-30. (Repr. in The Structure of Language: Readings in the philosophy of language ed. by Jerry A[lan] Fodor & Jerrold J[acob] Katz, pp. 355–383. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964, and also in Harris 1970a, pp. 313–348 as well as in 1981, pp. 107–142.) French translation "Analyse du discours". Langages (1969) 13.8-45. German translation by Peter Eisenberg, "Textanalyse". Beschreibungsmethoden des amerikanischen Strakturalismus ed. by Elisabeth Bense, Peter Eisenberg & Hartmut Haberland, 261-298. München: Max Hueber. [Presents a method for the analysis of connected speech or writing.]
  • Harris, Zellig S. 1952c. "Discourse Analysis: A sample text". Language 28:4.474-494. (Repr. in 1970a, pp. 349–379.)
  • Harris, Zellig S. (1954.) "Distributional Structure". Word 10:2/3.146-162. (Also in Linguistics Today: Published on the occasion of the Columbia University Bicentennial ed. by Andre Martinet & Uriel Weinreich, 26-42. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York, 1954. Repr. in The Structure of Language: Readings in the philosophy of language ed. by Jerry A[lan] Fodor & Jerrold J[acob] Katz, 33-49. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964, and also in Harris 1970.775-794, and 1981.3-22.) French translation "La structure distributionnelle,". Analyse distributionnelle et structurale ed. by Jean Dubois & Françoise Dubois-Charlier (=Langages, No.20), 14-34. Paris: Didier / Larousse.
  • Harris, Zellig S. (1963.) Discourse Analysis Reprints. (= Papers on Formal Linguistics, 2.) The Hague: Mouton, 73 pp. [Combines Transformations and Discourse Analysis Papers 3a, 3b, and 3c. 1957, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. ]
  • Harris, Zellig S. (1968.) Mathematical Structures of Language. (=Interscience Tracts in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 21.) New York: Interscience Publishers John Wiley & Sons). French translation Structures mathématiques du langage. Transl. by Catherine Fuchs. (=Monographies de Linguistique mathématique, 3.) Paris: Dunod, 248 pp.
  • Harris, Zellig S. (1970.) Papers in Structural and Transformational Linguistics. Dordrecht/ Holland: D. Reidel., x, 850 pp. [Collection of 37 papers originally published 1940-1969.]
  • Harris, Zellig S. (1981.) Papers on Syntax. Ed. by Henry Hiż. (=Synthese Language Library, 14.) Dordrecht/Holland: D. Reidel, vii, 479 pp.]
  • Harris, Zellig S. (1982.) "Discourse and Sublanguage". Sublanguage: Studies of language in restricted semantic domains ed. by Richard Kittredge & John Lehrberger, 231-236. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Harris, Zellig S. (1985.) "On Grammars of Science". Linguistics and Philosophy: Essays in honor of Rulon S. Wells ed. by Adam Makkai & Alan K. Melby (=Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 42), 139-148. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Harris, Zellig S. (1988a) Language and Information. (=Bampton Lectures in America, 28.) New York: Columbia University Press, ix, 120 pp.
  • Harris, Zellig S. 1988b. (Together with Paul Mattick, Jr.) "Scientific Sublanguages and the Prospects for a Global Language of Science". Annals of the American Association of Philosophy and Social Sciences No.495.73-83.
  • Harris, Zellig S. (1989.) (Together with Michael Gottfried, Thomas Ryckman, Paul Mattick, Jr., Anne Daladier, Tzvee N. Harris & Suzanna Harris.) The Form of Information in Science: Analysis of an immunology sublanguage. Preface by Hilary Putnam. (=Boston Studies in the Philosophy of, Science, 104.) Dordrecht/Holland & Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, xvii, 590 pp.
  • Harris, Zellig S. (1991.) A Theory of Language and Information: A mathematical approach. Oxford & New York: Clarendon Press, xii, 428 pp.; illustr.
  • Jaworski, A. and Coupland, N. (eds). (1999). The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge.
  • Johnstone, B. (2002). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Keller, R. (2011). The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD). In: Human Studies 34 (1), 43-65.
  • Keller, R. (2013). Doing Discourse Research. An Introduction for Social Scientists. London: Sage
  • Kittredge, Richard & John Lehrberger. (1982.) Sublanguage: Studies of language in restricted semantic domains. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Loriot, James and Barbara E. Hollenbach. 1970. "Shipibo paragraph structure." Foundations of Language 6: 43-66. The seminal work reported as having been admitted by Longacre and Pike. See link below from Longacre's student Daniel L. Everett.
  • Longacre, R.E. (1996). The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum Press.
  • Miscoiu, S., Craciun O., Colopelnic, N. (2008). Radicalism, Populism, Interventionism. Three Approaches Based on Discourse Theory. Cluj-Napoca: Efes.
  • Renkema, J. (2004). Introduction to discourse studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Sager, Naomi & Ngô Thanh Nhàn. (2002.) "The computability of strings, transformations, and sublanguage". The Legacy of Zellig Harris: Language and information into the 21st Century, Vol. 2: Computability of language and computer applications, ed. by Bruce Nevin, John Benjamins, pp. 79–120.
  • Schiffrin, D., Deborah Tannen, & Hamilton, H. E. (eds.). (2001). Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Blackwell
  • Teun A. van Dijk, (ed). (1997). Discourse Studies. 2 vols. London: Sage.
  • Potter, J, Wetherall, M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: SAGE.
  • Underhill, James W. (2011). Creating Worldviews: metaphor, ideology & language, Edinburgh UP.
  • Underhill, James W. (2012). Ethnolinguistics & Cultural Concepts: truth, love, hate & war, Cambridge UP.

External links[edit]