Discourse Analysis

MUHAMMAD SHAHRIL HAKIM FOO BIN MOHD SHARIF FOO (232776)

DEFINITION

Discourse analysis is a part of linguistics in which an observation is used to analyze how a specific language is used. To further understand how discourse analysis works, we must have an idea of what each keyword means, which are "discourse" and "analysis." According to Yule (2020), discourse means language beyond the sentence. On the other hand, according to Robert Audi (1999), analysis means the process of breaking up a concept, proposition, linguistic complex, or fact into its simple or ultimate constituents. Therefore, from both definitions, we can conclude that discourse analysis can be understood as a process of breaking up a language within texts or conversations into several components to interpret and understand not only its meaning but also how the users interpret what others are trying to convey, how they make sense of what they read, etc. Discourse analysis works by undergoing a process where the student may be asked to come to the laboratory, where he will have to ﬁll out questionnaires, or somebody will conduct an interview with him. The student (the subject) may even be tricked into a situation where his behavior will be observed. The researcher will then collect data, statistically analyze it, and, from the findings, deduce some causal relationships. The possibility that the student’s answers may have been skewed by extraneous factors, such as social desirability, positive response bias, or experimenter bias, may be well addressed.

BACKGROUND

Now that we have a clear understanding of discourse analysis, we can delve into its historical development. A Comprehensive History of Discourse Analysis.

Discourse analysis is a multifaceted field of study that scrutinizes the use of language in texts and contexts, concentrating on its ability to reflect and construct social realities. Various disciplines such as linguistics, sociology, anthropology, and literary studies have marked the history of discourse analysis, each adding layers of complexity to our understanding of language.

Early Foundations

Ancient Greek and Roman scholars like Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian, who explored how to use language to persuade, inform, and engage audiences, are the origins of discourse analysis. These early thinkers laid the groundwork for understanding the strategic use of language, which remains a central concern in contemporary discourse analysis. In the 19th century, the fields of philology and hermeneutics contributed to the foundation of discourse analysis. Philologists focused on the historical and comparative study of languages, while hermeneutics was concerned with the interpretation of texts, particularly sacred and literary ones. These disciplines highlighted the importance of context and the interpretive nature of language, concepts that are crucial in discourse analysis.

Structuralism and semiotics

Structuralists and semioticians made significant contributions to the study of language in the early 20th century. Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist, proposed that the relationship between the signifier (the form of a word) and the signified (its meaning) is arbitrary, and that meaning arises from the differences between signs. Saussure’s structuralist approach emphasized the systematic nature of language, which later influenced the analysis of discourse as a structured entity. Claude Lévi-Strauss, a French anthropologist, applied structuralist ideas to the study of cultures, analyzing myths and social practices to uncover underlying structures. His work paved the way for further exploration of how language functions within social systems by demonstrating the structural relationships that explain cultural phenomena, including language.

The Prague School and Functionalism

The Prague Linguistic Circle, which included scholars such as Roman Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetzkoy, advanced functional approaches to language in the 1920s and 1930s. They focused on how language serves various communicative functions and shapes linguistic forms. This functional perspective emphasized the purpose and use of language in context, a key aspect of discourse analysis.

Sociology and ethnomethodology

Harold Garfinkel, who founded ethnomethodology, introduced a sociological perspective to the study of discourse in the 1960s. Garfinkel scrutinized the creation of social order through everyday interactions, emphasizing the crucial role of language in shaping social reality. Ethnomethodology’s focus on the methods people use to make sense of their social world contributed to understanding how discourse functions in practical contexts.

Speech Act Theory

Around the same time, philosophers J.L. Austin and John Searle developed speech act theory, which explored how utterances function as actions. Austin’s seminal work "How to Do Things with Words" (1962) introduced the idea that speaking is a form of action, and Searle further developed this by categorizing different types of speech acts, such as promising, ordering, and apologizing. Speech act theory provided a framework for analyzing how language functions in social interactions, enriching the study of discourse.

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

The late 20th century saw the rise of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), heavily influenced by the work of Michel Foucault. Foucault's investigation into the interplay between language, power, and knowledge elucidated how power relations in society both shape and shape discourse. Foucault's concept of discursive formations and the intertwining of knowledge and power provided profound insights into the role of language in social structures. Norman Fairclough further developed CDA in the 1980s and 1990s, providing tools for analyzing how discourse both reflects and constructs social power dynamics. Fairclough’s work emphasized the critical examination of texts to uncover underlying ideologies and power relations, making CDA a vital tool for social critique.

Social linguistics and conversation analysis

In the 1960s and 1970s, William Labov's sociolinguistics work explored the relationship between language variation and social factors like class, gender, and ethnicity. Labov’s research demonstrated that language use is deeply embedded in social contexts, contributing to a broader understanding of discourse. Simultaneously, Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson pioneered conversation analysis, focusing on the structure and patterns of everyday conversation. Their detailed examination of conversational interactions provided insights into the rules and norms governing spoken discourse, highlighting the micro-level organization of language use.

Modern Developments

In recent years, discourse analysis has continued to evolve, incorporating new methodologies and perspectives. Multimodal discourse analysis extends beyond spoken and written texts to include visual and other semiotic resources, reflecting the complexity of modern communication. This approach acknowledges the construction of meaning through multiple modes, including images, gestures, and spatial arrangements, alongside language. Advances in corpus linguistics have also enriched discourse analysis. Using computational methods to analyze large-scale digital text corpora, researchers can identify patterns and trends in language use across different contexts and over time. This data-driven approach allows for a more comprehensive and systematic analysis of discourse.

Conclusion

Discourse analysis has developed from early rhetorical studies to a diverse and interdisciplinary field that integrates insights from linguistics, sociology, anthropology, and beyond. It continues to evolve, adapting to new forms of communication and employing advanced methodologies. Discourse analysis provides a deeper understanding of language's social and ideological dimensions by examining how it functions in various contexts, highlighting its critical role in shaping human experience and society.

CONCEPTS

TURN TAKING

In discourse analysis, turn-taking is a term for the manner in which orderly conversation normally takes place. A basic understanding can come right from the term itself, whereby it is the notion that people in a conversation take turns speaking. When examined by sociologists, however, the analysis goes deeper into topics such as how people know when it is their turn to speak, how much overlap there is between speakers, when it is OK to have overlap, and how to consider regional or gender differences.

The underlying principles of turn-taking were first described by sociologists Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson in "A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation" in the journal Language in the December 1974 issue.

Once a topic is chosen and a conversation initiated, then matters of conversational 'turn-taking' arise. Knowing when it is acceptable or obligatory to take a turn in conversation is essential to the cooperative development of discourse. This knowledge involves such factors as knowing how to recognize appropriate turn-exchange points and knowing how long the pauses between turns should be. It is also important to know how (and if) one may talk while someone else is talking, that is, if the conversational overlap is allowed. Since not all conversations follow all the rules for turn-taking, it is also necessary to know how to rebuild a conversation that has been thrown off course by undesired overlap or a misunderstood comment.

Withal, turn-taking can easily be understood as a style of conversation used by a language user to speak to another by taking pauses or stops whenever it is necessary to indicate that they have already finished speaking and that another speaker can take their turn to speak afterwards. Another way around is that if a speaker refuses to give up his turn during a conversation, the most common tool or strategy used is the addition of linkers or cohesive devices such as, and, or, but, and more to indicate that they still have something to say or to add to their speeches so their turn has not yet to be finished.

HEDGES

Hedges are linguistic devices used to express uncertainty, politeness, or to soften the impact of a statement. These devices, including modal verbs such as might, could, adverbs like possibly, probably, adjectives, namely, likely, possibly, phrases like sort of, kind of, and quantifiers such as some, several, help speakers mitigate the force of their assertions, making their language less direct or assertive. Hedges are employed to avoid committing to a particular viewpoint, to be diplomatically vague, or to show politeness and deference. They play a crucial role in conversational management by indicating tentativeness, openness to negotiation, or a willingness to be interrupted or challenged. In DA, understanding the use of hedges reveals the speaker's intentions, attitudes, and the social dynamics of interactions, reflecting power relations and maintaining social harmony. Hedges are essential in academic, everyday, and professional communication, contributing to the subtleties and complexities of human discourse. To make us understand more about hedges, let us divide them into three distinct parts: why and how they happen.

Why do hedges exist?

Hedges occur in conversation for several reasons, grounded in the social and pragmatic functions of language, such as managing uncertainty, whereby the speakers use barriers to indicate that they are not entirely sure about the information they are providing. This is particularly useful in discussions involving speculation, opinions, or incomplete knowledge.

Other than that, in social interactions, hedges help maintain politeness by softening statements that might otherwise be too direct or potentially face-threatening. This aligns with the politeness theory proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987), which suggests that speakers use various strategies to mitigate threats to the listener's face (public self-image).

Moreover, hedges allow speakers to present their ideas more tentatively, thereby reducing the potential for disagreement or conflict. This is especially important in collaborative or sensitive discussions. Lastly, in conversations, speakers often hedge to indicate that they are open to alternative viewpoints or to invite contributions from others. This promotes a more inclusive and cooperative discourse.

How do hedges occur?

In Conversation Analysis (CA), the occurrence of hedges can be examined through the detailed study of interactional sequences. CA focuses on the organization of talk and the ways in which conversational participants manage their interactions. Some examples include hedges, which often appear at specific points in conversation where speakers introduce new topics, make uncertain claims, or provide assessments. By softening their statements, speakers signal that they are introducing tentative or provisional information. Other than that, during turn-taking, speakers may use hedges to manage the transition between turns smoothly. This helps to maintain the flow of conversation and prevents abrupt or contentious exchanges. Moreover, when speakers encounter trouble speaking or understanding, they may use hedges during repair sequences to address potential misunderstandings or to clarify their intended meaning without asserting too strongly. Lastly, the use of hedges is often accompanied by particular prosodic features, such as rising intonation or pauses, which further indicate the speaker's tentativeness or uncertainty.

However, in this paper, we will only focus on hedges, which can be understood as uncertainty portrayed by a speaker through their statements.

REAL WORLD EXAMPLE

REAL WORLD EXAMPLE FOR TURN TAKING

PLAY ME

VIDEO EXPLANATION

From this video, we can identify a strategy of turn-taking where the speaker (interviewer) is using a normal completion point where some punctuation marks are used at the end of his speech, which in this situation is a question mark '?' indicating that he has finished talking and also asking for an answer from his interviewee. From the situation, it tells us that his turn of speaking is over and he is about to be handed to another speaker, i.e., the interviewee. Therefore, the moment his interviewee realized that there was a pause and no further elaboration by using a cohesive device such as 'and' or 'but', he started to take his turn and speak to answer the question given by the interviewer. However, as linguists try to classify the strategies used throughout the whole discourse, there are a few key components that exist. Those are:

The usage of punctuation marks, which is a question mark, '?'
Hand gesture: the sudden stop of hand movement, like when the interviewer rested his hands on the armrest on his seat when he finished talking.
Facial expressions and intonations: If the speaker's face looked relaxed or normal, as if he were not raising his eyebrows or his lips stopped moving and became visible to his respondent and audience, we may conclude that his turn of speaking has ended and was meant to be given to his interviewee.

Finally, to simplify the concept of turn-taking that happened in the video, let us take a look at the transcription of the discourse. Refer to the minute (0:05–0:33).

Interviewer: It feels like what I've taken from your book over the years is sort of the antidote to that: how do you think of what you're doing, how to be strategic about what you're doing, and also how to be aware and alert to what other people are doing and why? Does that make sense to you?

A brief pause occurs.***

Interviewee: Yes, it makes a lot of sense to me, because that's what I write about my books, but, you know, the way I think about it is that everybody has a lot of dreams, desires, goals, and wishes...

Therefore, in discourse analysis, turn-taking is examined by the aspect of stops that happens in between the lines throughout a conversation. Generally, when a stop or pause happens, people perceive it as the speaker having no more intention to speak and being willing to give his turn and listen to another person as he responds afterwards.

RELATION TO THE TOPIC (DISCOURSE ANALYSIS)

As we know from the definition part, discourse analysis concerns how a person conveys and interprets a message through texts or conversations in their daily lives. Taking the keywords 'convey' and 'interpret' into consideration, there are no doubts that the concept of turn-taking is inter-related to the topic of discourse analysis, because turn-taking also needs a good comprehension of interpreting and conveying the signs and strategies used in turn-taking to carry out a smooth conversation throughout the whole session or discourse. While linguists study how language users are able to interpret and convey messages through choices of words, etc., linguists also study how people are able to convey and interpret how to take turns in a conversation by the stops and the continuation of their speeches using signs or strategies that further allow them to either carry on or stop and give up their turn to speak to another speaker throughout their whole conversation.

In relation to the situation presented in the real-world example where Robert Greene is answering and receiving questions from an interviewer, a specific branch of DA, known as Conversation Analysis (CA), is examined, where it is particularly focused on the detailed study of turn-taking. Pioneered by scholars like Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson, CA examines the micro-level structure of talk-in-interaction, revealing the implicit rules and strategies speakers use to manage their conversations, as mentioned in the video explanation.

Withal, discourse analysis provides a comprehensive framework for understanding turn-taking as a central component of conversational interaction. By examining how turns are constructed, allocated, and managed, DA reveals the underlying order and social significance of everyday talk, contributing to a deeper understanding of human communication.

BACKGROUND OF THE REAL WORDL EXAMPLE

The video is about a podcast that was published on June 1, 2024, where a famous book author, Robert Greene, was invited to an interview in Seattle where he was asked about various different questions about his books, which were mainly focused on self-improvement and mental awareness. Robert is the author of the New York Times bestsellers The 48 Laws of Power, The Art of Seduction, The 33 Strategies of War, The 50th Law, Mastery, The Laws of Human Nature, and The Daily Laws. He turns to the most important subject of all: understanding people’s drives and motivations, even when they are unconscious of them themselves. Before that, a podcast is a collection or series of digital audio files that are made available for downloading or listening via the Internet. Each individual audio recording is known as a podcast episode. Podcasts are typically hosted by an individual or individuals who lead a conversation, share stories, or report the news. The creator of a podcast is known as a podcaster. Podcasts are hosted on streaming applications such as Spotify, Stitcher, iTunes, Google Podcasts, and Apple Podcasts (the podcast app that comes with iOS). However, the type of podcast shown in the video is an interview-style podcast. Interview-style podcasts typically have a host or pair of co-hosts who conduct an interview with a person of interest, similar to a TV talk show. Throughout the podcast, Robert portrayed an immense mastery of turn-taking during his conversation with the interviewer by waiting for his turn to answer questions and maintaining his turn until he was fully satisfied with his answers.

1) https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxpiwS6ynlvfW_zUZtex0TjQ-A0PKx8Lfd

2) Greene, R. (1998). The 48 laws of power. Viking.

3) Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). Conversation Analysis: An Introduction.

4) Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2012). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis.

INTERESTING ASPECTS

The video showcases some intriguing aspects of turn-taking. These interesting aspects are the things that attract people into learning about such concepts and make them eager to explore more and more as they dive into the understanding of discourse analysis and one of its concepts of turn-taking. The first interesting aspect of turn-taking is that it analyzes interactional difficulties and strategies that exist within the discourse. These are challenges and tactics in managing smooth turn-taking, such as dealing with background noise or managing group conversations, while these aspects reveal the adaptability and resourcefulness of speakers in maintaining effective communication under various conditions. Next is multimodal turn-taking, where the use of non-verbal cues, such as gestures, eye contact, and body language, in managing turn-taking shows the integration of verbal and non-verbal communication in constructing and interpreting turns, adding depth to the analysis of interaction. It turns out that even non-verbal communication contributes certain effects to the conversation and speaker's turns, while people are mostly focused on the traditional verbal approach. However, both play an important role in facilitating a smoother conversation, allowing the speakers to take turns using both types of communication throughout their discourse. Lastly, silences show a gap in the conversation and pauses as a brief halt within a speaker's turn, while the captivating attribute of this component is its strategic use of silences and pauses, which can convey meaning, regulate the flow of conversation, and signal cognitive and emotional states. However, these interesting parts of turn-taking make speakers more articulated and effectively responsive towards another during a discourse, thus making the discourse analysis much more appealing and sparking curiosity within the minds of the linguists and the audience.

PERSONAL OPINION

In my opinion, taking turns is a vital aspect of our daily conversation. With turn-taking, it allows people to maximize their words and provide an ample amount of input when speaking. Violations in turn-taking are to be avoided, such as cutting off people's speech while they are not finished, even when they clearly show their non-verbal cues and strategies, which can contribute to an unhealthy conversation. At the end, no one can benefit from the conversation they have, and it will be a complete waste of time. For example, during the podcast of the real world, if the interviewer does not respect the concept of turn-taking, the invited speaker can never convey his message and contexts well as he is disrupted whenever he is trying to talk. Plus, badgering questions and constantly giving replies are also bad turn-taking endeavors due to annoyingly interrupting both the speaker and the audience. Nevertheless, it is important to study turn-taking under conversational analysis, CA, as it can be a good skillset for one to apply whenever they engage in a conversation and contribute a smooth environment and time towards others.

OVERALL CONCLUSION

In the world today, discourse analysis has evolved and improved significantly to assist linguists in studying and understanding human behaviors throughout their conversations. The words chosen and the interpretations made by speakers are indeed beneficial aspects to be studied, as they become useful tools to apply in our daily lives. Through all of the complications, we are now able to understand more about the study of the concept of 'turn taking' as presented in the podcast inserted on the real-world example, since it may provide an ample amount of input for the audience to understand and tackle on what, how, and why the speaker behaved that way throughout his speech. Without analyzing the discourse, we may never understand the strategies portrayed by the speaker and will be left in curiosity about his behavior, such as the non-verbal cues that he made or the intonation of high and low pitches that he used throughout his speech. Plus, without understanding the concept, people tend to cut off others's speech in a conversation, which in most cultures is considered rude. The wonders of discourse analysis are further mentioned, as they attract language users to engage more in using them and enjoy the benefits of it being a healthy conversation.

REFERENCE

analysis. (2024). https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/analysis
discourse. (2024). https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discourse
Sociolinguistics: Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Clarendon Press.
Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis: Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Critical Discourse Analysis: Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Longman.
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Elite Discourse and Racism. Sage Publications.
Contemporary Developments: Gee, J. P. (2014). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Routledge.
Greene, R. (1998). The 48 laws of power. Viking.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). Conversation Analysis: An Introduction.
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2012). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse