Discursive analysis is sometimes defined as an analysis of the language “outside the sentence”. This is a broad term for learning how language is used between people in written texts and in conversational context. "Learning the real use of the language by real speakers in real situations," wrote Theun A. van Dyck in the Discourse Analysis Guide.
Early use of the term
This concept came to us from ancient Greece. In the modern world, the earliest example of discursive analysis belongs to the Australian Leo Spitzer. The author used it in his work "Research Style" in 1928. The term came into general use after the publication of a series of works by Zellig Harris since 1952. In the late 1930s, he developed transformational grammar. Such an analysis transformed sentences for translating languages into canonical form.
Development
In January 1953, a linguist working in American biblical society, James A. Lorio, had to find answers to some fundamental mistakes in translating Quechua, in the Cuzco region of Peru. After Harris published in 1952, he worked on the meaning and placement of each word in a collection of Quechua legends with a native speaker. Lorio was able to formulate a discursive analysis method that went beyond the simple sentence structure. He then applied this process to Shipibo, another language in Eastern Peru. Further, the professor began to teach theory at the summer Institute of Linguistics in Norman, Oklahoma.
In Europe
Michel Foucault became one of the key theorists of the subject. He wrote The Archeology of Knowledge. In this context, the term "discursive analysis" refers no longer to formal linguistic aspects, but to institutionalized models of knowledge that manifest themselves in disciplinary structures. They function on the basis of the connection between science and power. Since the 1970s, Foucault's work has been increasingly influential. In modern European social sciences, one can find a wide range of different approaches that work with Foucault's definition and his theory of speech acts.
Operating principle
A misunderstanding of the information transmitted may lead to certain problems. The ability to "read between the lines", to distinguish between actual messages and fake news, editorials or propaganda - all this depends on the ability to interpret communication. A critical analysis of what someone says or writes is of paramount importance. To take a step forward, to bring discursive analysis to the level of the field of research means to make it more formal, to combine linguistics and sociology. Even the field of psychology, anthropology and philosophy can contribute to this.
Priority
A conversation is an enterprise in which one person speaks and the other listens. Discourse analysts note that speakers have systems to determine when the turn of one interlocutor ends and the next starts. This exchange of turns or "floors" is signaled by such linguistic means as intonation, pause and phrasing. Some people wait for a clear break before they start talking. Others believe that "folding" is an invitation to speak to the next. When speakers have different assumptions about cornering signals, they may inadvertently interrupt or feel interrupted.
Listening can also be understood in different ways. Some people expect frequent nods and feedback from listeners, such as “yep”, “yeah,” and “yes.” If this does not happen, the speaker has the impression that they are not listening. But too active reviews will give a feeling that the speaker is rushing. For some, eye contact is expected almost constantly; for others, it should only be intermittent. The type of listener response can be changed. If he looks disinterested or bored, you must slow down the speech or repeat.
Discourse markers
This term defines very short words, such as “o,” “well,” “a,” “and,” “e,” etc. They break up speech into parts and show the connection between them. "O" prepares the listener for an unexpected or just recalled point. “But” indicates that the following sentence contradicts the previous one. However, these markers do not necessarily mean what the dictionary indicates. Some people use "e" only to start a new thought, and some people put a "but" at the end of their sentences as a way to gently leave. Understanding that these words can function in different ways is important to prevent frustration that can be experienced.
Speech act
The analysis of the conversation does not ask what form the statement takes, but what it does. Studying speech acts, such as compliments, allows discourse analysts to ask what they consider to be, who gives them to whom, and what other function they can perform. For example, linguists point out that women more often make compliments and receive them. There are also cultural differences. In India, courtesy requires that if someone praises one of your things, you offer to give this item as a gift. Therefore, a compliment may be a way to ask for something. An Indian woman who had just met her son’s Russian wife was shocked to hear her new daughter-in-law praising her beautiful saris. She commented: "What girl did he marry? She wants everything!" By comparing how people in different cultures use language, discourse analysts hope to contribute to improving intercultural understanding.
Two ways
Discursive analysis is usually determined in two interconnected ways. First, he explores the linguistic phenomena of real communication beyond the supply level. Secondly, it considers the primary functions of the language, and not its form. These two aspects are emphasized in two different books. Michael Stubbs, in his Discourse Analysis, refers the analysis to linguistic pragmatics. John Brown, in a similar work, is trying to learn the language "between the lines." Both books have the same title and were released in 1983.
Discourse and framework
Reframing is a way of talking about the return and rethinking of the meaning of the first sentence. Frame analysis is a type of discourse that asks what activities speakers are doing at the time of their speech? What do they think they are doing in this way here and now? These are important questions of linguistics. It is very difficult for a person to understand what he hears or reads if he does not know who is speaking or what is the general topic. For example, when someone reads a newspaper, he needs to know if he is reading a news article, editorial, or advertisement. This will help to interpret the text correctly.
Differences
Unlike grammar analysis, which focuses on a single sentence, discursive analysis focuses on the wide and general use of language within and between specific groups of people. Grammars usually build examples that they analyze. Discourse analysis draws on the writings of many others to determine popular usage. He observes the colloquial, cultural and human use of language. Includes all "e", "e-mm", language misses and awkward pauses. It does not rely on the structure of the sentence, usage and stylistic choice, which often may include culture, but not the human factor.
Application
Discourse analysis can be used to study inequality in society. For example, racism, bias in the media and sexism. He may consider discussions around religious symbols located in public places. Translating languages in this way can help the government. With his help, you can analyze the speeches of world leaders.
In the field of medicine, communication studies have studied, for example, how doctors can make sure that they are understood by people with limited Russian language skills or how cancer patients cope with their diagnosis. In the first case, transcriptions of conversations between doctors and patients were analyzed to find out where the misunderstandings occurred. In another case, an analysis of the conversations of sick women was carried out. They were questioned about their feelings about the first diagnosis, how it affects their relationship, what is the role of their support in society and how “positive thinking” helped in overcoming the disease.
Theory of Speech Acts
This theory is related to how words can be used not only to represent information, but also to carry out actions. It was introduced by the Oxford philosopher J.L. Austin in 1962. Then it was developed by the American philosopher R.J. Searle.
Five moments of Searle
Over the past three decades, Searle's theory has become an important linguistic issue. From the point of view of its creator, there are five main points that speakers can achieve in their statements. This is an aggressive, sympathetic, directive, declarative and expressive point of view. This typology allowed Searl to improve the classification of Austin performative verbs and move on to a reasoned classification of the illocutionary powers of utterances.
Criticism of the theory
The theory of a speech act in a noticeable and varied way influenced the practice of literary criticism. In relation to the analysis of direct discourse by a character in a literary work, it provides a systematic, but sometimes cumbersome basis for identifying unspoken premises, consequences and consequences of speech. The language community has always taken this into account. The theory is also used as a model on which to redo the literature as a whole, and especially the prose genre.
One of the most important questions that some scholars dispute in Searle’s proposed typology concerns the fact that the illocutionary power of a particular speech act cannot take the form of a sentence. It is a grammatical unit in the formal system of language and does not include a communicative function.