DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
In the study of language, some of the most interesting observations are made, not in terms of the components
of language, but in terms of the way language is used. When we ask how we make sense of what we read, how
we can recognize well-constructed texts as opposed to those that are jumbled or incoherent, how we understand
speakers who communicate more than they say, and how we successfully take part in that complex activity called
conversation, we are undertaking what is known as discourse analysis.
The word discourse is usually defined as “language beyond the sentence” and so the analysis of discourse is
typically concerned with the study of language in texts and conversation. As language-users, we are capable of
more than simply recognizing correct versus incorrect forms and structures: we have the ability to create complex
discourse interpretations of fragmentary linguistic messages.
Interpreting discourse
We can cope with texts, written in English, which we couldn’t produce ourselves and which appear to break a
lot of the rules of English language. We can build an INTERPRETATION even when a text is not written perfectly.
Rather than simply reject the text as ungrammatical, we try to make sense of it. That is, we attempt to arrive at
a reasonable interpretation of what the writer intended to convey. In this effort to interpret and how we accomplish
it, that are the key elements investigated in the study of discourse. To arrive at an interpretation, and to make our
message interpretable, we certainly rely on what we know about linguistic form and structure. but , as language-
users, we have more knowledge than that.
Cohesion
The text must have a certain structure that depends on factors quite different from those required in the
structure of a single sentence. Some of those factors are described in terms of cohesion, or the ties and
connections that exist within a text. There are different types of cohesive ties, such as:
● Words that belong to the same semantic field or maintain reference to the same people and things
throughout.
● Connections between phrases
● Link words
● A certain use of verb tenses
Analysis of these cohesive ties within a text gives us some insight into how writers structure what they want to
say. An appropriate number of cohesive ties may be a crucial factor in our judgements on whether something is
well written or not. It has also been noted that the conventions of cohesive structure differ from one language to
the next and may be one of the sources of difficulty encountered in translating texts. Cohesion would not be
sufficient to enable us to make sense of what we read. It is quite easy to create a highly cohesive text that has a
lot of connections between the sentences, but is very difficult to interpret. “Connectedness” we experience in our
interpretation of normal texts is not simply based on connections between the words. There must be other factors
that lead us to distinguish connected texts that make sense from those that do not. This factor is usually
described as coherence.
Coherence
The key concept of coherence is not something that exists in words or structures, but something that exists in
people. It is people who make sense of what they read and hear. They try to arrive at an interpretation that is in
line with their experience of the way the world is. Our ability to make sense of what we read is probably a small
part of that general ability we have to make sense of what we perceive or experience in the world. Coherence
seems to be involved in our interpretation of all discourse. It is certainly present in the interpretation of casual
conversation (or when we do not understand the context or all the words). We are continually taking part in
conversational interactions where a great deal of what is meant is not actually present in what is said. Perhaps it
is the ease with which we ordinarily anticipate each other’s intentions that makes this whole complex process
seem so unremarkable.
How do people manage to make sense of what the other says? They do use the information contained in the
sentence expressed, but there must be something else involved in the interpretation. Exchanges of this type are
best understood in terms of the conventional actions performed by the speaker in such interactions. It is clear that
language-users must have a lot of knowledge of how conversation works that is not simply linguistic knowledge.
