Introduction
Discourse analysis is a general term for a number of qualitative research approaches that examine the use of language (aural and written texts) in social contexts in helping researchers find answers to their research questions or problems. Having its roots in applied linguistics, discourse analysis has been widely taken up in a variety of social science disciplines including sociology, anthropology, social work, social and cognitive psychology, communication studies, socio-legal studies, education, management and organization studies, each of which is subject to its own assumptions, dimensions of analysis and methodologies. In discourse analysis, the objects of analysis are varied and may include coherent sequences of sentences, propositions, speech acts, turns and gaps. In addition, topics of discourse analysis may include:
As was mentioned earlier, discourse analysis includes a number of analytical approaches, each of which is founded on its own theoretical assumptions. Some of the theoretical perspectives and analytical approaches used in discourse analysis are as follows:
While these approaches focus on different aspects of language use, they all view language as a social phenomenon as occurs in social interactions, and are concerned with the social contexts in which discourse is embedded.
[The above information is based on Van Dijk (1985)]
- Various types of discourse used in various disciplines including those used in politics, the media, education, science, medicine, law, business, etc
- The relationship between discourse and the development of syntactic structure
- The relationship between discourse and the context in which it is used
- The relationship between discourse and power (e.g. How discourse empowers some groups while disempowering others)
- The relationship between discourse and interaction
- The relationship between discourse and cognitive psychology
As was mentioned earlier, discourse analysis includes a number of analytical approaches, each of which is founded on its own theoretical assumptions. Some of the theoretical perspectives and analytical approaches used in discourse analysis are as follows:
- Applied linguistics
- Cognitive psychology
- Conversation analysis
- Critical discourse analysis
- Discursive psychology
- Emergent grammar
- Ethnography of communication
- Functional grammar
- Interactional sociolinguistics
- Pragmatics
- Response based therapy
- Rhetoric
- Stylistics (linguistics)
- Sublanguage analysis
- Variation analysis
While these approaches focus on different aspects of language use, they all view language as a social phenomenon as occurs in social interactions, and are concerned with the social contexts in which discourse is embedded.
[The above information is based on Van Dijk (1985)]
Theoretical Assumptions of Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis is a qualitative research method that investigates the use of language in social contexts. Concerned with the creation of meaning through talk and texts, discourse analysis provides insights into the way language works to help “shape and reproduce social meanings and forms of knowledge” (Tonkiss, 2012, p. 403). Grounded in social constructivism, which emphasizes the sociocultural interactions as sources of knowledge, discourse analysis is based on the following three theoretical assumptions (based on Potter,1996) :
- First, knowledge cannot be gained by pure objectivity as scientific and positivist researchers believe it can. A researcher brings his or her own set of beliefs, cultural values, expectations, subjectivity and bias into the study when conducting his or her research: A researcher recognizes his or her own beliefs, and acknowledges how these beliefs influenced by his or her own personal, cultural, and historical experiences shape his or her interpretations of reality and knowledge.
- Second, reality is socially and culturally constructed. Unlike scientific approaches in which reality, ideas, or constructs (e.g. intelligence & attitudes) are categorized as naturally occurring things, in social constructivist or interpretive approaches, these categories and constructs are shaped by the language and since language is a sociocultural phenomenon, our sense of reality is socially and culturally constructed.These realities which are often varied and multiple lead researchers to look for the complexity of the views rather than reduce meanings into a few categories or ideas. The goal of research, then, is to give insights into the different views and perspectives of participants and how these views and perspectives are socially and historically negotiated.
- Third, in social constructivism, a researcher is more interested in studying the language (discourse) and the role it plays in construction of meaning and knowledge in society. As such, the emphasis of such research is placed on the discursive patterns of talk in societies, their impact on the formation and reproduction of social meanings and identities as well as their role in empowering and disenfranchising institutions and individuals.
Theoretical Assumptions of Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical Discourse Analysis is a qualitative method of research that is grounded in postmodernism, a paradigm that focuses on knowledge that comes to surface within the "negative conditions of the world and in the multiple perspectives of class, race, gender, and other group affiliations" (Creswell, 2007, p. 79). These negative conditions reveal themselves in the presence of hierarchy, power and control and include the importance of different discourses, the importance of disenfranchised people and groups, and the presence of 'meta-narratives' or universals that hold true regardless of the social conditions (Creswell, 2007). Thus, in critical discourse analysis, the researcher is concerned with how language is used in social and political contexts for ideological purposes and for reproducing and legitimizing power, and therefore “goes beyond the rhetorical or technical analysis of language”, which is often the case in discourse analysis, “to explore its social and political setting, uses and effects” (Tonkiss, 2012, p. 408). As such, there comes a need to “deconstruct texts” in the spoken and written language and to investigate, and bring to light hidden “hierarchies as well as dominations, oppositions, inconsistencies, and contradictions” (Creswell, 2007, p. 25). Notable contributors to this method are Norman Fairclough and Ruth Wodak, from Lancaster School of Linguistics, whose work focuses on the way discourse produces or resists social and political inequality, power abuse, or domination.
Research Questions Common to Discourse Analysis
As with other forms of qualitative research, the investigator using discourse analysis often starts with a broad interest in topics relate to social life and cannot define the research problem precisely until he or she is in the data collection stage. “This is underlined by the fact that this form of research is not so much looking for conclusive answers to specific problems as looking at the way both the problem and possible solutions are constructed” (Tonkiss, 2012, p. 409). The researcher using this approach tries to identify categories, themes, ideas, views, and roles within the spoken or written text. The aim is to identify commonly shared discursive resources (shared patterns of talking). The questions may range from those that investigate how the discourse helps us understand the issue under study, to those that study how people construct their own version of an event, and to those investigating how people use discourse to maintain or construct their own identity.
Example of questions that can be answered using discourse analysis include:
Example of questions that can be answered using discourse analysis include:
- How is our view and understanding of immigrants shaped by the political and public discourses?
- How do youth construct their self-identities within their subculture?
- How do ESL/EFL students display their gendered, racial, and cultural identities through their talk in the classroom?
- How is our understanding of health shaped by various medical and psychological discourses?
Data Collection & Sampling
Depending on the problem to be investigated and the questions asked, different sources of data can be used. These sources could be in form of aural or written text and include public debates, political speeches, news and other forms of media, public documents and policies, interviews and conversations, many of which are easily accessible online and are within public access. For instance, to investigate the question “how is our view and understanding of immigrants shaped by the political and public discourses” the researcher may look at such sources as parliamentary debates, political speeches, policy documents, interviews, and press or television reports (Tonkiss, 2012). Or, to investigate the question “how do ESL/EFL students display their gendered, racial, and cultural identities through their talk in the classroom” the researcher may use audio or video recording of the classroom interactions/conversations, which can then be transcribed for visual access & further analysis.
Since the textual data related to the research topic can be abundant, the researcher needs to become selective in choosing their sources and be able to have a rationale for their selection. Some of the questions that need to be asked when selecting data include: what range of textual data is needed? Over what time period? How is data relevant in a particular social context?
Since the textual data related to the research topic can be abundant, the researcher needs to become selective in choosing their sources and be able to have a rationale for their selection. Some of the questions that need to be asked when selecting data include: what range of textual data is needed? Over what time period? How is data relevant in a particular social context?
Data Analysis
“When doing discourse analysis, it is not necessary to provide an account of every line of text under study” (Tonkiss, 2012, p. 412). Rather, it is more appropriate to select and extract sections of text that contain the richest source of analytical material. However, Tonkiss (2012) cautions that this shouldn’t imply that one should extract the sections that support the researcher’s argument, while leaving out the sections that are of contradictory nature. Contradictions, according to Tonkiss (2012), can often be useful for analysis.
Discourse analysis is an interpretive process that calls for close examination of specific texts and thus “does not lend itself to hard-and-fast rules of method” (Tonkiss, 2012, p. 412). However, some important pointers that could help with analysis, according to the author, include: 1) identification of key themes and arguments; 2) identification of associations and variation; 3) examination of characterization and agency; and 4) attention to emphasis and silences. A description of each pointer will follow.
Discourse analysis is an interpretive process that calls for close examination of specific texts and thus “does not lend itself to hard-and-fast rules of method” (Tonkiss, 2012, p. 412). However, some important pointers that could help with analysis, according to the author, include: 1) identification of key themes and arguments; 2) identification of associations and variation; 3) examination of characterization and agency; and 4) attention to emphasis and silences. A description of each pointer will follow.
- Identification of Key Themes and Arguments: As a starting point for analysis, the researcher should look for key categories, themes, and terms which often recur through out the text. These themes should be then coded in the same way that qualitative data obtained from other methods are coded. This analytical process includes “sifting, comparing and contrasting the different ways in which these themes emerge” (Tonkiss, 2012, p. 413) as well as identifying the recurrent themes, phrases, and images that reveal what the speaker or writer is trying to put across in the text. Some of the questions asked at this stage include: What ideas and representations center around key themes? Are specific themes and meanings generated?
- Identification of Association and Variation: The second useful strategy in discourse analysis is to find patterns of association and patterns of variation within the text. Useful questions to ask include: What associations or variations are established between actors, groups, or problems?
- Examination of Characterization and Agency: Another useful tool in discourse analysis is to explore how social actors, agents, and groups are characterized, spoken about, and positioned within a text. Also, the author or speaker’s own voice could be of analytic interest. For instance, accounts could be presented as either ‘impersonal, distanced, and objective’, or ‘personal, close, and subjective’. Finally, another analytic tool in this respect is to examine how agency is depicted within the text. That is to say, to find out whether the person, actor, or social group is seen as passive or active in causing the problems or in creating solutions described to remedy them.
- Attention to Emphasis and Silences: Final tool in discourse analysis is to highlight patterns of emphasis and patterns of silence within a text. Patterns of emphasis refer to large number of references to a theme, category or term, whereas patterns of silence refer to the gaps or themes that have been left out, excluded or unsaid in the organization of a discourse. To find out patterns of silence, the researcher is required “to read against the grain of the text, to look to silences and gaps, to make conjectures about alternative accounts which are excluded by omission, as well as those which are countered by rhetoric” (Tonkiss, 2012, p. 417). It is also noteworthy to mention that while discourse analysis is mainly a qualitative method of research, discourse analysts, at times, may use quantitative methods to reveal the frequency or consistency with which different themes, associations, or variations are used. This is particularly true when a large number of associated themes and patterns are scattered across a large number of texts, and so the researcher would have difficulty tracing them without using quantitative methods.
Data Presentation
In the final stage of the study, the researcher presents his or her argument on the basis of discourse analysis. The researcher becomes concerned with “using language to construct and warrant their own account of data and backing it up with persuasive evidence and authority” (Tonkiss, 2012, p. 417). In this respect, discourse analysis concerns itself with issues of internal validity referring to the coherence and consistency of an interpretive argument. That is to say, any analytic claims in discourse analysis need to be always backed up by a sound reading data, and by presenting persuasive and well-supported accounts. Nonetheless, the researcher who uses discourse analysis, while may be confident of the internal validity of his study, is open to other critical insights and arguments. This critical and open position is also understood as part of a reflexive approach to social research wherein the investigators question their own bias and subjectivity and consider the impacts of those on the setting and results of their study. For this reason, the issues of external validity and generalizability of findings obtained from discourse analysis to other settings are of little relevance to researchers using such method.