C-CS   jjs
Discourse Analysis
|Comm & Cognition |Comm as Cog. Sci. | Configuring | Glossary | Works Cited | downloads | help | about |
= footnote
= return to text
= illustration
= example
Discourse Analysis


What are we analyzing when we analyze a discourse? There are several answers to this question, each of which fits a particular type of discourse analysis. In C-CS, the focus of analysis is the "communication matrix" embedded in a text.ftn For this reason, the type of discourse analysis in this section of C-CS is appropriate to communication studies. At the same time, communication discourse analysis shares many analytical tools with other forms of discourse analysis. Our focus is on the discourse structures (linguistic patterns) that correspond to the cognitive abilities employed in signifying (creating meaning).fn2 Thus, the form of discourse analysis in the entries that follow is deeply indebted to cognitive linguistics.

Ronald Langacker lists the following cognitive abilities in his Foundations of Cognitive Grammar:

These cognitive abilities lie behind our linguistic abilities. They contribute various discursive elements marked by aspects of the cognitive processes involved. There is, however, no one-to-one correspondence. Combinations of these abilities produce identifiable discursive structures.fn3 (For a more detailed account, see "Langacker on Cognitive Abilities")

 

ABSTRACT

The basic unit of discourse analysis is a text. There are numerous analytical tools for the discourse analysis of texts. Here are several typical ones: Frames are categories that we use to conceptualize our world. Questions are linguistic devices we use to find information, ideas, or to understand situations. Questioning is searching. When we compare things, ideas, or persons, we are forming judgments about them. Comparisons are judgments. Narratives order experiences. Stories have plots. Cultures maintain their character through configurations. Descriptions map experiences. Declarations are interventions. Arguments are only sometimes logical.

The basic unit of discourse analysis is a text.

A text is the vehicle of signification exchanged in a communication situation. Imagine, for example, that this page was printed and given to a person who did not understand English. She would be given a text, that is, something that can transfer meanings from one person to others. It is bounded in the sense that it is a physical unit—a page of printed words. If, on the other hand, this text were given to a person who understood English and who read it, the text becomes a discourse. Alexandra Georgakopoulou and Dionysis Goutsos argue that

By taking text as the basic unit of analysis, we assume that it can be regarded as an autonomous unit, an entity or self-sufficiency, 'a single unified construction' (Fowler 1981: 14). This assumption partly stems from the notion of ext as a concrete, material record of the process of communication . . . As a record, every text has discrete limits (begriming and end) and constitutes a self-contained whole. (Discourse Analysis, 6)

The advantage of making a text is basic unit of analysis rather than a discourse is because texts have boundaries and discourses do not. Once a reader of a text begins to create meaning from it, it is difficult to put boundaries on its meaning.

The analytical tools of discourse analysis.

The analysis of discourse can be overwhelming because discourses are limitless and discursive structures are countless. However, some discourse structures are typical and frequently used whereas others are atypical and rarely used. We will focus on nine very common discourse structures. The following concepts refer to aspects of discourses that are "marked" (have an identifiable begriming and end) and are thus available for analysis.

These discourse structures are linguistic patterns that are the result of cognitive abilities employed in signification (making meaning).

Frames are categories that we use to conceptualize our world.

The most common discourse structure is a frame. In Minsky's well-known definition, "A frame is a data structure representing stereotypical situations in terms of features that are always true of such situations" (A Companion to Cognitive Science, 61). A frame, then it a unit within a text. However, once a text becomes a discourse a frame reverts to the cognitive domain (category) in the minds of the producer an receiver of the text. Since, as David Lee notes, frames are parts of cognitive frameworks, it is quite difficult to put limits on the meanings they might convey (Cognitive Linguistics, 8).fn5

Consider the category/frame "computer." Every person has a different framework from which that term derives its meaning for that person. For some persons computers are the laptop or desktop machines they typically use. For others computers include the devices in automobiles that allow them to find travel maps for destinations. For persons who are acquainted with the history of computing, Turing machines are computers. Yet, as Minsky notes, the category represents typical situations "in terms of features that are always true of such situations." For this reason, none of the persons using the frame, computer, imagine pencils or pens at work inside the machines.

It is important to note that frames within frameworks are the principle means by which we organize our experiences and that positing a frame early in a text has the discursive effect of "framing" subsequent categories. If Jill says to Jack in a telephone conversation:

(1) Hi, it's a beautiful day here,

you would expect my next sentence to be positive because the category "a beautiful day" includes positive features of the category "day." So, if my next sentence is:

(2) It's raining,

you would place the category "rain" in a positive light which might be confirmed by a subsequent remark:

(3) But the rain is very gentle and I can hear it washing the autumn leaves on the tree outside my window.

On the other hand, if Jill's first sentence was:

(1b) Hi, it's an ugly day here,

followed by:

(2b) It's raining

you would place the category "rain" in a negative light and anticipate an unpleasant sequel such as:

(3b) More accurately, it's pouring cats and dogs.

The category "rain" can be included in the category "day" as in "rainy day." But the category "day" can be included in the category "beautiful" or the category "ugly." Discourses are structured by embedded frames occurring in a particular sequence of symbols (the syntagmatic axis or plane). The "embedding" provides a begriming and an end. The end comes when a category appears that cannot be embedded in early ones. We experience this ending as a "shift in topic." For example:

(4 a/b) {So much for the weather,} I want to talk about John.

Questioning is searching in the form of problem solving.

Another discourse structure common to conversations is a question/answer pairing. For example, Jack might respond to sentence (4) with a question:

(5) What about John?

We can identity answers to this question. If Jill says,

(6) His grades,

we can recognize that the questioning is continuing because the topic is still "John."

(7) How bad are they?

In this sequence framing also occurs since "grades" are framed by "John's" and "bad" modifies "grades."

(8) He has "F's" in three subjects and "D's" in two others."
(9) That's pretty bad.
(10) What can we do?
(11) For starters, talk to him.

The conversational sequence from 4-11 reveals two types of questioning. Jack's question, "What about John?"(5), is a request for information that he does not have On the other hand, Jill's question, "What can we do? (10), begins a common search for a solution to a problem. The solution may be construed as Jack's advice "talk to him." Or the conversation might continue the search if Jill responds, "I've already talked to him but he won't listen."

Comparisons are judgments.

Another identifiable discourse structure is a comparison. For example:

(12) John is not like Mary who listens to me.

Sentence (12) could be the begriming of an extended comparison between John and Mary.

(13) John looks away when I bring up the subject of his grades.
(14) Whereas Mary looks contritely at me if I bring up a fault of hers.
(15) Recently, John has even walked away to avoid the subject of his grades.
(16) You can be sure Mary would never dare to do that.

The end of the comparison would be marked by either a shift to another topic, for example, if Jack said:

(17) I don't think Mary is that docile.

The conversational shift is away from the topic of John's grades and toward the topic of Mary's demeanor.

Narratives order experiences.

Narratives are another common discourse structure. They are sequences of actions involving one or more characters and lasting for the period of time that the framing event requires. The framing event of a "journey" requires that someone move from one place to a destination. Once the destination is reached, the event is ended. Another kind of framing event (or situation) would be watching a movie. Once the movie is over, it can no longer be watched, only watched again. Narratives are frequently inserted in conversations. For example, Jill might narrate an event that portrays Mary as docile to counter Jack's belief that she isn't docile enough to walk away from a conversation to avoid it:

(18) Well, the other day, Mary answered the phone and it was a telemarketer.
(19) She couldn't bring herself to hand up on him.
(20) She kept answering his questions.
(21) I could tell she wanted to end the conversation but couldn't manage it.
(22) So, I asked her for the phone.
(23) She politely said to the telemarketer, "Pardon me, just a minute, my mother wants to talk to you."
(24) I had to end the conversation for her.
(25) I said, "Sorry we are not interested in subscribing to the Courier News" and hung up.

The framing event or situation is a telephone conversation. It begins with Mary's answering the phone and ends with Jill's hanging up. The anecdote characterizes Mary in response to Jack.

stories have plots.

Jack might respond to Jill with a story about Mary.

(26) But remember when Mary wanted to get on the track team and the coach told her she would be better off quitting.
(27) Ok, she didn't say anything to him right away but she showed up at the next practice.
(28) Her coach said: what are you doing here?
(29) She said: "I want to be on the team."
(30) Coach replied that "Everyone here is faster than you."
(31) "Well if that's so, let me race the fastest girl."
(32) He agreed and said if she could beat Janet Fox in a race, she could stay on the team.
(33) John went with her and remember his account of the race.
(34) John told us that Janet Fox laughed at the coaches request that she race Mary, saying "I'm the fastest runner by far; Mary's no match for me."
(35) "Mary," he said, "shouted back at Janet: We'll see who wins."
(36) "Janet shot out ahead immediately with a furious burst of speed." John continued.
(37) But she used up too much energy and had to slow down to rest and get her breath again.
(38) Mary not only caught up with her but took the lead.
(39) John said that later the coach admonished Janet for being too cocky and thinking that she could let Mary take a good lead and then catch her in the last lap.
(40) Mary persisted and just edged Janet out at the finish line.

This story would be evidence of Mary's initiative that would be more convincing than Jill's anecdote. It reveals Mary's desire to be on the team and her willingness not only to confront her coach but also to find a way of beating a faster opponent. The story begins with Mary's desire and conflict with both her coach and Janet. It ends when she wins. The turning point in the plot is Janet's slowing down to catch her breath and Mary's catching up. But of course, this would only be evidence of Mary's initiative if it were true.

Cultures maintain their character through configurations.

(41) Jack, for heaven's sake, John was pulling your leg when he told that story; it's not true—Mary and Janet never raced each other.
(42) Are you sure?
(43) That's another problem with John; he tells tales and makes up stories about events that never happened.
(44) Besides, that's the old Aesop fable about the "Tortoise and the Hare."
(45) Oh, god. You're right.
(46) Why does John do these things?
(47) I think I'm begriming to understand why he told that story with Mary as the heroine.
(48) Enlighten me!
(49) It's one of the most repeated stories in the culture.
(50) It's about having the right attitude.
(51) So what?
(52) By telling me that particular story he was talking about Mary's attitude—she's not aggressive but she's persistent.
(53) How do you know that?
(54) The fable of "the Tortoise and the Hare" is a cultural configuration of persistence: that's the moral of the story, "persistence trumps aggression"—remember how cocky the hare was in the fable.
(55) I thought the moral was "Slow and stead wins the race."
(56) Exactly!

This is an example of the way that cultural configurations of behavior persuade us to behave in certain ways. Fairy tales, folk tales, classic stories are obvious examples. But any story that is repeated with great frequency in a culture is probably a "lesson" in how to act if you want to be a member of the culture. The heroes and heroinses "with a thousand faces."

Descriptions map experiences.

Though narratives are descriptive (settings, scenes, etc.), non-narrative descriptions are marked by their a-temporal character. For example:

(57) I take your point Jack, Mary is very persistent.
(58) Although her plants die, she refuses to stop gardening.
(59) She just gets new ones and plants them, trying out different combinations of soil, fertilizer, sun, and temperature until they grows into healthy plants.

The sentence "Mary is very persistent" and "She refuses to stop gardening" are non-narrative descriptions of Mary. Sentence (59) is a narrative description of Mary. In (57) and (58) there is no temporal dimension. Sentence (59) has a temporal dimension. Non-narrative descriptions are like photographs and narrative descriptions are like moving pictures.

Descriptions are bound by frames (domains) or scenes (pictures) or both. They are like "maps" or "mental models" of the world—static rather than dynamic.

Declarations are interventions.

There are many kinds of non-narrative discourse structures. Speech act theorist identify at least a dozen or so.fn2 We are focusing on two aspects of what they call, "stating" (describing and declaring) because others are relatively self-evident (requesting, commanding, predicting, apologizing). The importance of declaring is that it states a belief explicitly. In this sense it is an intervention in the discourse that stipulates a belief and thus forces the interlocutor to agree or disagree with it. We have already encountered several in the conversation above but have not called attention to them. For example:

(17) I don't think Mary is that docile.

(57) I take your point Jack, Mary is very persistent.

In (57) Jill is admitting that Jack has persuaded her to change her earlier belief that Mary is too docile to confront her coach.

Arguments are only sometimes logical.

In admitting that she now shares Jack conclusion about Mary, she indicates that an argument has taken place. The argument is marked by opposing beliefs—that Mary is too docile; that Mary is not too docile. Steven Toulmin has the most often cited account of an argument as a discourse structure in his The Uses of Argument.

Toulmin contends that arguments have three necessary components: a claim, support for it, and a "warrant."

(16) You can be sure Mary would never dare to do that [turn away without answering a question].. claim (declaration of belief)
(18) Well, the other day, Mary answered the phone and it was a telemarketer.
(19) She couldn't bring herself to hand up on him.
(20) She kept answering his questions.
(21) I could tell she wanted to end the conversation but couldn't manage it.
(22) So, I asked her for the phone.
(23) She politely said to the telemarketer, "Pardon me, just a minute, my mother wants to talk to you."
(24) I had to end the conversation for her.
(25) I said, "Sorry we are not interested in subscribing to the Courier News" and hung up.		 supporting anecdote (data of experience)
She couldn't bring herself to hand up on him, She kept answering his questions, she wanted to end the conversation but couldn't manage it = docility warranting assumption

The force of this argument is not logic. There is NO necessary connection between docility and not hanging up, continuing to answer questions. There is also NO necessary connection between wanting to hang up and not hanging up. Imagine a situation in which Mary is talking to her boyfriend on the phone and telling him that their relationship is over. He might very well be asking her why it has to end. It would be completely understandable that she would continue to answer his questions although she wanted badly to hang up.

Even in the case of a telemarketer, there are no necessary connections between wanting to hang up and not hanging up. For example, Mary might be anxious to get ready for a date but has to recognize that the product being marketed is something she needs to have.

The warranting assumption depends upon how "docile" is defined. An ordinary dictionary definitions offers the following senses:

1. (3) docile -- (willing to be taught or led or supervised or directed; "the docile masses of an enslaved nation")
2. docile, teachable -- (ready and willing to be taught; "docile pupils eager for instruction"; "teachable youngsters")
3. docile, gentle -- (easily handled or managed; "a gentle old horse, docile and obedient")

The three descriptions of Mary's behavior that are offered as evidence of her docility are:

The warranting assumption is plausible but Jill's inference that Mary's behavior is docile comes from observations of Mary in which she behaved in similar ways. The fact that Jack could easily offer counter-factual evidence of her assertiveness, from a logical viewpoint, should contradict Jill's argument. Of course it doesn't because people are NOT consistent in their behavior. In some circumstances they may behave with docility and in others with assertiveness.

However, this comment about logic does not void the notion that there are discursive argument structures in Jack and Jill's conversation.

The conversational situation

In the previous section, I argued that "all discourses are situated" and further that "situations are embedded in discourses." The situation in this conversation is that Jack and Jill are involved in a telephone conversation. The turn-taking in the conversation is more idiom to phone conversations than email exchanges. It is clear that they are at a distance from each other but conversing. Jill says "on the tree outside my window." This would be a odd remark if she and Jack were standing in the same place. Also, Jill says "it's a beautiful day, here." "Here" implies a "there" as in "what's it like there" where you are? Jack and Jill's relationship is more than casual which fits not only with the content of their conversation but also with Jill's remark: "What can we do about it?" Further when Mary refers to Jill as her mother, "just a minute, my mother wants to talk to you." If Jill is Mary's mother and Jill and Jack are the we who are concerned with both John and Mary and share experiences of John and Jill, we would be inclined to consider them intimates, most likely married since the conversation fits a situation in which a married couple talk about problems with their children. These inferences are not scientific. Generally speaking, however, discourse analysts usually know what situations occasioned the discourse. Nonetheless, the situation is usually embedded in the discourse anyway.

Given the situation we have identified, it's obvious that the conversation is not "ended." Sentence (59) "She just gets new ones and plants them, trying out different combinations of soil, fertilizer, sun, and temperature until they grows into healthy plants" does not bring closure to the conversation. It invites a response from Jack. Jill is admitting that Jack's point is "well taken"and she offers evidence for it from her perspective. Although sexist conversations sometimes end without a man acknowledging a woman's agreement, in polite conversations one might expect Jack to say:

(60) Well, I'm glad you agree but I have to admit that there are times when Mary is quite docile as you've pointed out.
(61) I almost forgot about John.
(62) I don't believe we can solve that problem over the phone.
(63) Wait until I get back from New York and we'll talk it through.
(64) You're right but we have to address the problem.
(65) Agreed.
(66) Love you!
(67) Love you too!
(68) Bye.
(69) See you tomorrow.

[For the complete text of the conversation, go to "A telephone conversation between Jill and Jack about John and Mary."]

Now we have closure because Jill and Jack have agreed to postpone the problem of Jack's grades. Conventional declarations of intimacy end the conversation—"Love you"; "Love you too." And "bye" is a declaration that the conversation is over from the speaker's point of view.

jjs

 

line

Notes:

n1 . The term, "text," is used for the component of any communication that contains the signification used in the transaction. The text is a term for a vehicle of communication and is broader in scope than a message or a discourse. Messages and discourses refer to what is communicated. Text refers to the vehicle that makes communication possible. (Think of a text by analogy with an automobile. People go on short or long journeys, the car is the vehicle that makes the journey possible.) See Discourse Analysis: An Introduction, 5ff. ...

fn2The cognitive abilities involved in the use of language are not identical to the variety of speech acts in the work of J. L. Austin and John R. Searle. There is some overlap.

In the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy entry, "Speech Act Theory, " Robert E. Butts remarks that speech act theory "aims to characterize the nature of communicative intentions and how they are expressed and recognized" (758). He identifies the following "commicative" speech acts, noting that "they are distinguished by the type of psychological state expressed by the speaker" and "successful communication consists in the audience's recognition of [them]" (758):

There are other "conventional" speech acts deployed in institutional context (e.g., "I pronounce you man and wife")...

fn3 .[Our ability to compose comparisons is dependent on our ability to compare objects to each other. Our ability to narrate depends, in part, upon our ability not only to imagine (settings) but also to recognize, select, foreground, and categorize (genre).] ...

fn4 .This category parallels J. L. Austin's conception of a performative speech act. How To Do Things With Words, 4ff. But it is broader than his in that it includes declarations that are not institutionally authorized. ...

fn5 .The term "frame" has a vexed history (see Debrah Tannen's “What’s in a Frame,” Framing in Discourse, 14-56.). In C-CS, a frame is equivalent to Langacker's notion of a cognitive domain. ...

← previous | next →

last revised: June 13, 2007 Send comments to jjs.

copyright © jjs, 2007