Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Discourse Analysis
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849209403.n17
Discourse Analysis
Definition
Discourse analysis is the study of language in context. It is an approach that
emphasizes how versions of the social world are produced within naturally occurring
spoken or written discourse. The discourse analytic view is that all features of talk
or texts perform some kind of action (for example exercizing power and control over
others) and it is possible to analyse how language is used to achieve that action. It is
therefore concerned with how participants construct themselves and others through
their discourse and how these selves may be undermined.
Distinctive Features
There are a number of different approaches to discourse analysis (see Phillips and
Jørgensen, 2002 for a full review) due in part to the developing nature of the field and
to the number of disciplines in which it has its roots, including linguistics, sociology,
psychology, philosophy and literary theory. However, all approaches share the same
postmodern perspective that talk does not neutrally reflect our world and our social
relationships but rather actively constructs and alters them. Discourse theory views
discourse as a constantly changing entity and explores the struggle between competing
forms of discourses each representing a particular way of understanding the world.
Critical [p. 54 ↓ ] discourse analysis accepts that discourse is just one among many
aspects of social practice and that intertextuality (that is, how texts draw on elements of
other texts) is a central concern. Discursive psychology sees individual actors as both
the products and the producers of discourse and is more concerned with small-scale
‘talk-in-interaction’ rather than large-scale societal discourse.
Discourse analysis is not just a method of data analysis but an approach that
combines philosophy, theory and method. Discourse analysts start with the acceptance
that discourse is a form of social action that plays a part in producing the social
world (including social relations and knowledge). Physical objects and events exist
independently of people's thoughts and speech, but they have meaning only through
discourse. For instance, most people would view cancer as an illness, but they would
not necessarily describe it in the same way. Some would draw on discourses of
behavioural risk, while others may see it as a result of medical mismanagement and
others still might attribute it to God's will. Importantly, each of these discourses of
explanation will suggest a different course of action to tackle the illness.
Discourse analysis also has similarities with conversation analysis, not least because
of its use of naturally occurring speech. However, it differs from conversation analysis
in that it deals with wider social science concerns such as gender relations and social
control. Whereas conversation analysts exclude the context in which participants speak,
discourse analysts argue that one cannot understand what is going on in a particular
interactional episode unless one knows how to locate it within the macro societal
context. Discourse analysis takes meaning above the utterance level to focus on the
participants’ roles and their institutional or ideological motives. Therefore, although
audio-recordings and transcription are required to be of good quality, discourse
analysis does not require the same attention to detail as the units of analysis are
broader.
Examples
Sarangi et al. (2003) present a discourse analysis of data derived from genetic
counselling clinics. Focusing on the discourse of risk assessment and risk [p. 55 ↓ ]
The idea that discourse constructs the world rather than representing it has also been
popular within the sociology of science. Research has focused on the importance
of scientific discourse and texts particularly in relation to scientific persuasion and
practical reasoning. For example Mulkay and Gilbert (1982) show how scientists use
two distinct interpretative repertoires, or linguistic registers, when discussing their
work. The empiricist repertoire is used by scientists when discussing work in a formal
context, and is characterized by a conventionally impersonal style, where references
to human actors are minimized and the natural world appears to speak for itself. In
contrast the contingent repertoire is characterized by references to the personal and
social contingencies in scientific action and belief. Mulkay and Gilbert (1982) describe
how scientists apply these two repertoires asymmetrically to account for correct and
incorrect beliefs. Thus they present correct belief, which is invariably identical to
their current views, as arising unproblematically from the experimental evidence, and
incorrect belief is explained by reference to the distorting effects of personal and social
factors.
[p. 56 ↓ ]
Evaluation
Discourse analysis has been described as a craft skill (Potter, 1997). Researchers
are required to develop an analytic mentality to their data that comes with experience,
although familiarity with other discourse analytic studies will aid the grasp of general
principles and methodological strategies. Wood and Kroger (2000) provide a number of
suggestions and analytical concepts for novice discourse analysts in order to develop
their analytic resources and assist with generating interpretations of the data. These
suggestions include considering what is missing from the discourse (for example, an
apology or a greeting) and considering how the discourse makes the reader feel (for
example, amused or angry), and trying to identify the features of the text that produced
such feelings.
There are concerns that discourse might be affected by the act of audio-recording, in
which case the data cannot be said to be naturally occurring. There are occasions when
recording would not result in bias, for example when recording from a radio broadcast.
Even if speakers are aware that their speech is being recorded, the discourse might not
be affected if, for example, they are highly involved with the task at hand or if recording
takes place over periods of time (Wood and Kroger, 2000).
Discourse analysis has been criticized for not attending to the non-verbal aspects of
interaction. Such concerns emerge from a belief that non-verbal interaction is more
trustworthy than verbal because it is less controllable and hence more likely to disclose
true meaning. This position fails to recognize that language is an action and indeed
that most people seem to have difficulty controlling the details of their speech. In
fact discourse analysts do attend to the non-verbal. Potter's (1997) analysis of the
BBC interview with Princess Diana explicitly draws attention to the significance of the
Princess's non-verbal actions (head shaking and distant gazes) within the exchange.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849209403.n17
Associated Concepts:
Mulkay, M. and Gilbert, G.N. ‘Accounting for error: how scientists construct their social
world and how they account for correct and incorrect belief’, Sociology vol. 16 no. (2)
(1982) pp. 165–183.
Sarangi, S. and Coulthard, M. (2000) Discourse and Social Life. London: Pearson.
#van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) (1985) Handbook of Discourse Analysis (vol. 4). London:
Academic Press.
Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S. (2001) Discourse Theory and Practice: A
Reader. London: Sage.
#Wood, L. and Kroger, R.O. (2000) Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying
Action in Talk and Text. London: Sage.