Discourse Analysis
Both discourse and conversation analysis approaches stem from the semiology
(understanding and analyzing meaning) and ethnomethodological tradition (e.g.,
Garfinkel 1967, 2002), which is the study of the ways in which people produce
recognizable social orders and processes. It is a set of procedures used for
analysing language as used in speech and texts. It focuses on language and how it
is used to construct versions of social reality. Thus, ethnomethodology and its
subgenres view text as a window into broader social and cultural processes.
Referring back to Ryan and Bernard’s typology, both of these approaches tend to
examine text as an “object of analysis.” Analysis can be quite detailed, looking at
the specific structure of discourse and interaction between two or more speakers
to understand how shared meanings are socially constructed. Both approaches
study (usually recorded) “naturally” occurring language, as opposed to text
resulting from more “artificial” contexts, such as formal interviews, and aim to
extract social and cultural meanings and phenomena from the discourse studied.
According to Porter (1997) ‘Discourse analysis emphasizes the way versions of the
world, of society, events and inner psychological worlds are produced in discourse
or language’. This definition means that discourse is not just a mirror of the social
world around us but in many ways plays a key role in producing that world. How
we say things – our phrases, sentences, emphases have an impact on perception
and understanding of self and others.
Four themes in discourse analysis
Gill (2000) has drawn attention to four prominent themes in DA
1 Discourse is a topic: Language is a way of revealing what others think
and perceive.
2 Language is constructive : this means that language is a way of
representing choices which reveals a person’s traits and dispositions.
3 Discourse is rhetorically organized: This implies that language is a mode
of persuading others and communicating one’s thoughts and ideas.
4 Discourse is a form of action: A person’s discourse is affected by the
social context. For example one’s reasons for wanting a job may vary
depending upon whether you are addressing the interviewers, members
of your family or friends.
Two forms of discourse analysis have evolved over the past decade. The former,
now termed discursive psychology evolved from the work of Potter and Wetherall
(1987) and is particularly concerned with conversational context of the discourse.
According to this approach language is a medium of social action rather than a
mode of representing thoughts and ideas.
Analysis of a particular discursive event is usually carried out according to three
dimensional framework:
(a) Examination of actual content, structure and meaning of the text (the text
dimension).
(b) Examination of the form of discursive interaction used to communicate
meaning and beliefs( discursive practice dimension).
(c) Consideration of social context in which the discursive event is taking place
(social practice dimension).
The other approach is known as critical or Foucaldian analysis(FDA).
This approach has been especially developed by Ian Parker. FDA aims to
identify the broader discursive resources that people in a particular culture
draw upon in their everyday lives. These resources not only shape the way
we interpret and act in the world but also how we define ourselves.
While conversation and discourse analysis are similar in a number of ways,
there are some key differences. Discourse analysis (DA) is generally broader in
what it studies, utilizing pretty much any naturally occurring text, including
(existing) written texts, lectures, documents, and so forth. Conversation analysis
(CA) is a subset of discourse analysis. Its scope is narrower and confined to natural
conversations between two or more people. Another difference is that discourse
analysis emphasizes how humans construct meaning through speech and text,
and its object of analysis typically goes beyond individual sentences. Conversation
analysis, on the other hand, tends to be more granular, looking at elements such
as grammatical structures and concentrating on smaller units of text, such as
phrases and sentences.
