DEFINITION OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS DISCOURSE ANALYSIS MEANING • is a research method for studying written or spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real life situations. • is a common qualitative research method in many humanities and social science disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology and cultural studies. WHEN YOU CONDUCT DISCOURSE ANALYSIS, YOU MIGHT FOCUS ON: • The purpose and effects of different types of language • Cultural rules and conventions in communication • How values, beliefs and assumptions are communicated • How language use relates to its social, political and historical context WHAT IS DISCOURSE ANALYSIS USED FOR? Conducting discourse analysis means examining how language functions and how meaning is created in different social contexts. It can be applied to any instance of written or oral language, as well as nonverbal aspects of communication such as tone and gestures. Materials that are suitable for discourse analysis include: • Books, newspapers and periodicals • Marketing material, such as brochures and advertisements • Business and government documents • Websites, forums, social media posts and comments • Interviews and conversations HOW IS DISCOURSE ANALYSIS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER METHODS? Unlike linguistic approaches that focus only on the rules of language use, discourse analysis emphasizes the contextual meaning of language. It focuses on the social aspects of communication and the ways people use language to achieve specific effects (e.g., to build trust, to create doubt, to evoke emotions, or to manage conflict). Instead of focusing on smaller units of language, such as sounds, words or phrases, discourse analysis is used to study larger chunks of language, such as entire conversations, texts, or collections of texts. The selected sources can be analyzed on multiple levels. HOW TO CONDUCT DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Step 1: Define the research question and select the content of analysis To do discourse analysis, you begin with a clearly defined research question. Once you have developed your question, select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it. Discourse analysis is a method that can be applied both to large volumes of material and to smaller samples, depending on the aims and timescale of your research. HOW TO CONDUCT DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Step 2: Gather information and theory on the context Next, you must establish the social and historical context in which the material was produced and intended to be received. Gather factual details of when and where the content was created, who the author is, who published it, and to whom it was disseminated. As well as understanding the real-life context of the discourse, you can also conduct a literature review on the topic and construct a theoretical framework to guide your analysis. HOW TO CONDUCT DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Step 3: Analyze the content for themes and patterns This step involves closely examining various elements of the material – such as words, sentences, paragraphs, and overall structure – and relating them to attributes, themes, and patterns relevant to your research question. Step 4: Review your results and draw conclusions Once you have assigned particular attributes to elements of the material, reflect on your results to examine the function and meaning of the language used. Here, you will consider your analysis in relation to the broader context that you established earlier to draw conclusions that answer your research question. APPROACHES TO DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 1. SPEECH ACT THEORY It is a logico-philosophic perspective on conversational organization focusing on interpretation rather than the production of utterances in discourse. It grows from the basic belief that language is used to perform actions. Based on this theory, every utterance can be analyzed as the realization of the speaker’s intent (illocutionary force) to achieve a particular purpose. The focus of the analysis is speech act (SA) or illocutionary force (IF). The principal problem faced by linguists is the lack of a one-to-one match-up between discourse function (IF) and the grammatical form. This theory provides the insight that the basic unit of conversational analysis must be functionally motivated rather than formally defined one. 2. INTERACTIONAL SOCIOLINGUISTICS This theory grows out of the work of anthropologists. It is centrally concerned with the importance of context in the production and interpretation of discourse. It focuses on the analysis of grammatical and prosodic features in interactions. Gumperz demonstrated that interactants from different socio-cultural backgrounds may “hear” and understand discourse differently according to their interpretation of contextualization cues in discourse, e.g. intonation contours, ‘speaking for another, alignment, gender. Schiffrin (1987) focused on quantitative interactive sociolinguistic analysis, especially discourse markers. Her basic concern is the accomplishment of conversational coherence. She argues for the importance of both qualitative and quantitative analysis to determine the function of the different discourse markers in conversation. 3. ETHNOGRAPHY OF COMMUNICATION This theory is concerned with understanding the social context of linguistic interactions: ‘who says what to whom, when, where, why and how. The prime unit of analysis is speech events. Speech event refers to ‘activities that are directly governed by rules or norms for the use of speech. Speech event comprises components. Analysis of these components of a speech event is central to what became known as an ethnography of communication or ethnography of speaking, with the ethnographer aiming to discover rules of appropriateness in speech events. Problem: Lack of explicitness in Hymes’ account of the relationship between genre and other components of the speaking grid and their expression in language and recognition of the close relationship between speech events and their social or cultural contexts. 4. PRAGMATICS This theory formulates conversational behavior in terms of general “principles” rather than rules. At the base of the pragmatic approach to conversation, and analysis is Gricean’s cooperative principle (CP). This principle seeks to account for not only how participants decide what to DO next in a conversation, but also how interlocutors go about interpreting what the previous speaker has just done. This principle is broken down into specific maxims: Quantity (say only as much as necessary), Quality (try to make your true contribution one), Relation (be relevant), and manner (be brief and avoid ambiguity). Its significant problem is it implies that conversations occur co-operatively, between equals where power is equally distributed, etc. However, in reality, conversations involve levels of disagreement and resistance and power is constantly under contestation. 5. CONVERSATION ANALYSIS Garfinkel’s (sociologist) concern is to understand how social members make sense of everyday life. Sack, Schegloff, and Jefferson tried to explain how conversation can happen at all. CA is a branch of ethnomethodology. CA is a branch of ethnomethodology. There are two grossly apparent facts: a) only one person speaks at a time, and b) speaker change recurs. This conversation is a ‘turn-taking’ activity. Speakers recognize points of potential speaker change – turn constructional unit (TCU). CA identified TCU as the critical unit of conversation. Models conversation as an infinitely generative turn-taking machine, where interactants try to avoid lapse: the possibility that no one is speaking. Its major problems: a) lack of systematization- thus quantitative analysis is impossible; 2) limited ability to deal comprehensively with complete, sustained interactions; 3) though offers a powerful interpretation of conversation as a dynamic interactive achievement, it is unable to say just what kind of achievement it is. 6. VARIATION ANALYSIS Labov and Waletzky argue that fundamental narrative structures are evident in spoken narratives of personal experience. The overall structure of fully formed narrative of personal experience involves six stages: 1) Abstract, 2) Orientation, 3) Complication, 4) Evaluation, 5) Resolution, 6) Coda, where 1) and 6) are optional. The strength is its clarity and applicability. Variationists’ approach to discourse stems from quantitative of linguistic change and variation. Although typically focused on social and linguistic constraints on semantically equivalent variants, the approach has also been extended to texts. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Advantages of Discourse Analysis • Discourse analysis helps researchers uncover the motivation behind a text by allowing them to view a problem from a higher stance. • It is useful for studying the underlying meaning of a spoken or written text as it considers the social and historical contexts. • It helps to understand the function of language and how discourse can be used to foster positive social change. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Disadvantages of discourse analysis • There are choosing different approaches the most suitable to method discourse analysis, for a setting so can be challenging. • It can be highly time-consuming • Some have argued that it is nothing more than a deconstructive reading of a text to understand its underlying meaning—it does not provide answers to questions based on scientific research. REFERENCES: • https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/discourse-analysis/?fbclid=IwAR3zTctDlcrHdaWPxCXs89hTvgc87usnlmEyFqfEQ2kpuCgqFoQbPU2Ccc • https://jumarohisnanto.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/approaches-to-discourse-analysis/ • https://delvetool.com/blog/discourseanalysis THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!
