DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Discourse analysis is an approach to the analysis of language that examines:
• The patterns (modello / schema ricorrente) of language within and across the texts.
The patterns are typical / fixed ways of using language in specific situations.
They allow us to categorize the kinds of texts and the ways in which a text needs to be produced in order to
be recognized by others as valid.
Discourse Analysis compares various texts of the same kind to see if the patterns are repeated.
If the patterns are repeated, they are called conventions.
• The social and the cultural contexts in which the texts occur / is produced / is used.
Discourse analysis is therefore concerned in what happens when people draw on (attingere) the knowledge they have
about language and about the world to do things in the real world.
It is therefore concerned in the practical (not theoretical) analyses of the language in use in both spoken and written
interactions, in order to provide a deeper understanding of the texts (of how they are realized and of how they convey
a message → what people mean by what they say, how they make sense of what others mean and how language
presents different views of the world and understandings) and of how they become meaningful to their users (of how
people present themselves to others and achieve their goals through the use of language.)
BRANCHES OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Discourse Analysis is divided in two main branches:
• A textually oriented one, which focuses on the linguistic features of the text.
• A socially oriented one, which situates / collocates the text in the social context in which it occurs to see:
− If and how the text relates with the social context.
− If and how the text changes the social context.
Every single participant brings, in fact, something, contributing to an exchange.
The exchange is, therefore, constantly updating and refining the text and the social context.
It allows us to shape / to construct a certain vision of the real world.
− The relation between language and identity / gender.
For many years, studies on the relation between language and identity / gender have a lot to do with
the idea of deficit.
But, in more recent years, a new idea has been taken, and it is the idea of identity / gender as performance.
Everyone chooses, in fact, to adopt an identity / a gender.
According to the gender-fluid theory, we do not have to be caged into an identity / gender that does not
always fit us (sometimes we are something and sometimes we are something else.)
− The notion of intertextuality.
Every text relies on other texts.
ORIGIN OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
The term “discourse analyses” was first introduced by Zellig Harris as a way of analyzing connected speech
and writing by:
• Considering language above (al di sopra) word / sentence level.
It means analyzing the whole discourse and not the single words / sentences, in order to define how the linguistic
features are distributed within and across texts and how they are combined in particular kinds of texts.
Discourse analysis compares, in fact, various texts of the same kind to see if the patterns are repeated.
If the patterns are repeated, they are called discourses.
The discourses share particular meanings and have characteristic linguistic features associated with them.
• Considering the relationship between linguistic behavior (language / what is said or is written) and non-linguistic
behavior (context / what is meant.) *
It means situating / collocating / contextualize the text in the real world, in order to interpret it based on
the situation and on the culture in which it is produced.
The same text can, in fact, take a particular or a different meanings in different situations and cultures.
NEXT CONTRIBUTION TO DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Next contribution to discourse analysis was provided by Van Dijk.
According to him, context is not objective / physical, but it is a subjective / mental construct. *
It isn’t, in fact, the context that influences the text, but it is the way in which the participants define the context
in which the text occurs.
The perception of the context is, therefore, constantly updated by the participants in their interactions / dynamic.
As a result, the link between language and context is indirect.
Ex. if I say “there’s a football match at the stadium” it seems to be an objective context.
but, in reality, the perception of the context depends on the participant.
the players will have a perception of the event, the audience in the stadium will have another, the audience on tv
will have another, the security staff will have another, the people who live close to the stadium will have another…
