DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GUIDE

Abstract

The aim of this brief guide is to introduce the methodological literature ondiscourse analysis. The term ‘discourse analysis’ is interpreted here as referringto detailed analysis of language-in-use, whether this takes the form of speech ortext. (In practice, it is almost always text which is analysed, since speech isusually transcribed from audio- or video-recordings for analysis.)Even as defined here, rather narrowly, ‘discourse analysis’ covers amultitude of rather different approaches. These vary in several important ways: intheir focus, in what sorts of knowledge claim they aim to make, and in the kindsof technique they deploy.In terms of focus, we can distinguish, to some extent, between analysiswhich is restricted to conclusions about discourse itself, and that which isdirected towards drawing conclusions about social or societal processes orstructures. For example, discourse analysis based on systemic linguistics fallsinto the first category: it usually draws a sharp line between language andsociety, and focuses primarily on the first. By contrast, much discourse analysisin social psychology and sociology has a broader focus, often rejecting anydiscursive/social distinction - on the grounds that all discourse is action and allaction is discursive.Equally significant are differences in aim. As with other kinds of socialresearch, discourse analysis varies in terms of whether the exclusive immediategoal is to produce knowledge or extends beyond this to include practical orpolitical purposes. There is a very sharp contrast in this respect, for instance,between Conversation Analysis (CA) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).The latter rejects the very idea that research can avoid serving politicalpurposes. The former usually adopts a relatively strict value-neutral approach,though there have been attempts to change this (for references, see the sectionof the bibliography on CA below).There can be variation in aim on the part of discourse analysts in anotherrespect too. Sometimes, discourse analysis is applied to some set of texts inorder to draw substantive conclusions about the way in which the production andeffects of those texts are related to the particular social contexts in which theyare located. Alternatively, discourse analysis may be used to develop theoreticalunderstanding of various general types of discursive mechanism, rather thanparticular instances of them. Different approaches to discourse analysis are notalways clear about their aims in this sense. Indeed, often it seems that thepurpose is to address both these tasks simultaneously. Once again, though, wecan take CA and CDA as offering a contrast. CDA is usually concerned withdocumenting the use of particular discursive devices for ideological purposes incontemporary societies. By contrast, despite its emphasis on contextualdependence and rejection of ‘theory’, much CA work seems to be aimed atproviding a theoretical understanding of abstract types of discursive strategy:question-answer sequences, stories, insertion sequences, announcements, etc.(This has, in fact, been one focus for criticism of CA from within theethnomethodological tradition out of which it emerged: see M. Lynch

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.