M19 206 individual work theme: The Status of Discourse Analysis Supervisor: Prof. Azad Mammadostrreplu- 2020

Dimensions of Discourse and Fields of Discourse Studies

The historical sketch – given above – of the emergence of discourse studies in the various disciplines of the humanities of the social sciences, and its increasing integration with its sister disciplines, such as semiotics, pragmatics and sociolinguistics, already provides first insights into the various dimensions of discourse and the fields of the new cross-discipline. Let us now examine this configuration of the new discipline and its object of study more closely. Thus, for instance, we on the one hand have cognitive studies of the mental processes involved in the production or comprehension of discourse, and interactional studies of everyday conversation or institutional talk, on the other hand. The same is true for more cultural approaches in the ethnography of speaking, and – in a quite different, more critical, perspective (focusing on e.g., popular culture or youth culture) – in the ‘Cultural Studies’ developed by Stuart Hall and others in the UK (Hall, et al., 1978). Strangely, following the same general division of the mother disciplines, the historical approach to discourse – outside of the theory of historiography and oral history – so far has been quite marginalin discourse studies, with the exception of, for instance, the work on anti-Semitism by Ruth Wodak (Wodak, et al., 1990). Besides these interdisciplinary approaches in discourse studies, the ‘core’ of the new discipline remains the systematic and explicit analysis of the various structures and strategies of different levels of text and talk. Let us briefly review these, also in order to show how the vast field of discourse studies is organized in various subdisciplines that also have become more or less independent, as also was the case for, say, lexicology, phonology, syntax and semantics within linguistics. Discourse Grammar The strong influence of linguistics on discourse studies and its development still shows in the prominent position of grammatical analysis in many discourse studies. We have seen above that this influence of linguistics also played a central role in the development of discourse studies, namely in the first ‘text grammars’. We also saw that various directions in formal grammar (as well as in logic and formal philosophy) continue to be one of the productive areas of formal discourse analysis. Unfortunately, this formal direction of research is virtually unknown in other domains of discourse studies. Within less formal ‘discourse grammars’, we continue to have studies of the sound structures of discourse (Bolinger, 1989; Brazil, 1975), for instance in studies of intonation, as well as studies of discourse syntax (Givón, 1979) continuing for instance the early work on anaphora, which also has links to formal discourse studies. Strangely, discourse semantics has remained an underdeveloped area of discourse grammar. Yet, if there is one level of discourse that contributes to the specific discursive nature of text and talk, it is the study of meaning, as we also know from the first studies of coherence in the 1960s and 1970s. Part of discourse semantics, and shared with work in cognitive linguistics, is of course the research on metaphor, already mentioned above. Also very relevant is the study of semantic implication (entailment) and presupposition, for instance as one of the basic dimensions of coherence: In order to establish coherence relations between the propositions of a discourse, we often need to spell out the ‘missing links’ of the propositions implied or presupposed by the propositions explicitly expressed in discourse. There are many more aspects of discourse meaning that need systematic analysis and that cannot simply be reduced to the semantics of words and sentences. For instance, discourse may describe (prescribe, account for, etc.,) events, actions and actors and may do so in many ways: more or less explicitly or implicitly, more or less generally or specifically, more or less precisely or vaguely, with many or few details, as background or as foreground, and so on. There are many constraints on sequences of descriptions, such as an increasing focus from broader to narrower objects of description (e.g., from a house to a room in the house, from a room in the house to furniture in the room, and from furniture to an object on such furniture, and so on – and in general not vice versa). The same is true for descriptions of time and tense sequences and, the way persons and social actors are described, and so on. One new line of research, carried out within the general framework of Functional-Systemic grammar, is that of Appraisal Theory, which examines the way opinions are expressed in discourse (Martin & White, 2005). Discourse meanings may be characterized in terms of sequences of propositions, but we know that meanings are not limited to local or sequential structures, but also may characterize whole discourses. The classical example are the ‘topics’ of discourse, traditionally described in terms of ‘semantic macrostructures’, and typically expressed in headlines, leads, introductions, conclusions, initial ‘thematic’ sentences, and so on (van Dijk, 1980). In linguistic terms, topics are global meanings that dominate the local meanings of sequences of sentences or turns of talk. In cognitive terms, topics represent the most important information of a discourse, as it is being assigned by speakers/writers or recipients. Topics also represent the kind of information that is best recalled when understanding discourse, and it is the kind of meaning we usually plan ahead before starting (or continuing) to speak or write. Despite the fundamental relevance of such global meanings in the organization and processing of discourse, it is strange that many directions of discourse and conversation analysis ignore or do not make explicit such global semantic structures. Indeed, much more semantic research will be necessary to examine in much more detail the relations between such ‘macrostructures’ and the ‘microstructure’ of local meanings of words and sentences. At the same time, these studies of local and global meanings of discourse of course need to be related to the cognitive analysis of discourse, also because they require an explicit account of the fundamental role of knowledge in the local and global coherence of text and talk. We see that both at the local and the global level of discourse meaning, there is a vast area of discourse analysis that remains virtually unexplored, but that should form an important element of future research on discourse grammar.