Introduction to

DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS
WRITTEN BY

OLA HAFEZ

REVISED BY
M. M. ENANI

(٨) ٢٠٠١
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (٤٢٣)
٢ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

COPYRIGHTS
RESERVED
٢٠٠١

Educational Technology by:

Dr./Ahmed Gaafer
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٣

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………... ٥
Unit ١ DISCOURSE ANALYSIS : WRITTEN & SPOKEN LANGUAGE ٧
Unit ٢ COHESION ………………………………………………………….. ١٣
Unit ٣ TEXTUALITY…………………..…………………………………. ٢٣
Unit ٤ THR COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE & IMPLICATURE…………… ٣١
Unit ٥ SPEECH ACTS……………………………………………………… ٤١
Unit ٦ SPEECH EVENTS…………………………………………………... ٥٥
Unit ٧ POLITENESS……………………………………………………….. ٦٣
Unit ٨ TURN TAKING……………………………………………………... ٧١
Unit ٩ ADJACENCY PAIRS & SEQUENCE STRUCTURE ……...….…. ٨١
Unit ١٠ DISCOURSE MARKERS ………………………………………….. ٩٣
Unit ١١ CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS …………………………….. ١٠١
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………... ١١٢
٤ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

١٤٥٩
Deposit No :
١
I.S.B.N :٩٧٧-٢٢٣-
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٥

INTRODUCTION

To the Student:
How to Study for this Syllabus
There are three distinct stages:
• Pre-viewing
• While-viewing
• Post-viewing
A. Pre-viewing
This is a stage for preparation and attention. You should do
the following before viewing the tape:
١. Go through the objectives. Of the unit you want to study
٢. Read the unit and write down the main ideas and
definitions.
٣. Make a note of the terms you study and find examples
for them, .
٤. Mark the difficult parts in the unit.
٥. Try to answer the questions.
٦. Be ready with the book, a pen and paper.
B. While-viewing
While following the instructions, try to find answers to your
questions as well as the questions that may arise. Also, remember
some examples of the new terms that you meet, and repeat them
as you hear them on tape.
C. Post-viewing
After viewing the tape, you should:
٦ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

• Go through the objectives of the unit to see if they have

been achieved.
• Go through the pre-viewing notes to see if you still have a
problem with the unit content.
• Read the unit again.
• Answer the questions in the book.
• Make use of the plays and stories you have studied to find
more examples of the ideas in the unit.
• Frequent reviewing is highly recommended.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٧

Unit ١ DISCOURSE ANALYSIS:

WRITTEN & SPOKEN LANGUAGE
Objectives
By the end of this unit , students should be able to :
١- Define the following :
* discourse.
* discourse analysis.
* text linguistics.
* conversation analysis.
٢- Explain the difference between a sentence and an
utterance.
٣- Tell the difference between written and spoken language.

Language is usually defined as a system of symbols used for

human communication. This system is easy to see in phonetics,
morphology, syntax and semantics. As you probably remember,
phonetics studies the sounds and how they are produced.
Morphology analyses word parts, how words inflect for tense,
number, etc. and how words can be derived from others by adding
certain prefixes and/or suffixes. As for syntax, it comprises the
study of how words combine to form phrases and how phrases
combine to form sentences. Semantics studies word meaning and
sentence meaning. However, the search for system at discourse
level, i.e. beyond the sentence, is still evolving. Discourse
analysis is the study of the language of communication, its
function and organization (both in its written and spoken forms).
٨ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

Written language has always been regarded as a source of

permanence of linguistic excellence and as a permanent record of facts
to keep or scan. It has also been regarded as a form of authority
following rules of prescriptive grammar. It can also be composed,
edited and read at one’s own pace, repeatedly if the need arises,
allowing repeated reading and analysis. It is usually physically distant
and more formal. It was traditionally regarded as the only respectable
representation of language, with spoken language occupying a
secondary position. However, speech can be argued to be primary to
writing in many senses. In one sense, speech is historically prior to
writing, having emerged thousands of years before writing systems
were developed. In another sense, speech develops more naturally in
children as they pick it up from family and peers before they go to
school to study reading and writing. It is the primary medium of
communication among all people, comprising more than ٦٠ of our
daily activity. Its role further contrasts with written language as some
languages (e.g. some Central African and Amazon tribes) have never
been written down.
Parallel to the distinction between written and spoken
language is that between a sentence and an utterance. It is also
basic to the study of discourse analysis. A sentence is an abstract
string of words put together according to grammar rules. It is
grammatically complete, including a finite verb to be
grammatically well formed. An utterance, in contrast, may be a
sentence, a series of sentences, or an incomplete sentence e.g.
“Sorry”. It is defined as a stretch of talk by one person, before
and after which there is a pause. It is used as a physical event,
defined in terms of its time of utterance, place of utterance and
accent of the speaker. It is the unit of spoken language, thus it
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٩

may be loud or soft, slow or fast. If one sentence is uttered twice,

it comprises two utterances. However, to produce different
sentences, one needs to use different words or a different word
order.
Many of the utterances we use do not consist of full
sentences, and yet are entirely understandable in context. E.g.
“Coffee?”
“Sure!”
Two sentences may have exactly the same meaning but
cannot say they are one utterance. Each utterance is a unique
event created at a particular point in time for a particular purpose.
Thus, the same sentence “It’s cold in here” could mean different
things in different contexts. If said by a Prince to his servant, it
would mean, “Close the window”. If said by a husband to his
wife who had asked him whether to have dinner in the garden, it
could mean “No, let’s eat indoors”. Thus, two utterances using
the same underlying sentence may have different interpretations
in different contexts.
Discourse is a continuous stretch of language in use (i.e. in
context) larger than a sentence; it is a set of utterances which
constitute any recognizable speech event e.g. a conversation, a
joke, a sermon, an interview. Traditional linguistics has recently
witnessed an increasing interest in discourse analysis, i.e. -- how
sentences work in sequence to produce coherent stretches of
language. It studies features of language that bind sentences
when used in sequence. It studies all language units with a
definable communicative function, whether spoken or written. It
involves discovering linguistic regularities in discourses -- e.g.
١٠ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

cohesion and discourse markers -- with emphasis on permissible

units in both spoken and written texts, and function or purpose of
the discourse.
To study written language, text linguistics views a text as the
language unit with a definable communicative function,
characterized by such principles as cohesion, coherence, and
informativeness. It provides a formal definition of what
constitutes their identifying textuality. It also views language as
interaction between speaker and listener, and/or writer – reader.
On the other hand, conversation Analysis is a method of
studying sequential structure and organization of spoken
language. Using ethnomethodology, this approach studies
recordings of real conversations to establish what properties are
used in a systematic way when people interact. Conversation
analysis is basically empirical and inductive, studying the
structure of naturally occurring spoken language (e.g.
conversations, interviews, commentaries, and speeches). Upon
analysis, conversation has proved to be a highly structured
activity with basic conventions.
Main Ideas:
١- There are significant differences between written and
spoken language.
٢- A sentence is an abstract string of words put together
according to grammar rules .
٣- An utterance may be a sentence, a series of sentences, or
an incomplete sentence.
٤- Discourse is a set of utterances which constitute any
recognizable speech event. ( e.g. an interview).
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ١١

٥- Discourse analysis is interested in how sentences work in

sequence to produce coherent stretches of language.
٦- A text is the language unit with a definable
communicative function.
٧- Conversation analysis is a method of studying sequential
structure and organization of spoken language.

EXERCISES:
١. Distinguish between an utterance and a sentence.
٢. Compare written and spoken language.
٣. Define conversation analysis and text linguistics.
١٢ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ١٣

Unit ٢ COHESION

Objectives:
By the end of this unit, students should be able to:
١- Give the definition of “cohesion”.
٢- Explain the major types of cohesive ties: reference,
subestitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical.
٣- Tell the difference between cataphoric and anaphoric
references.
٤- Give a short account of deictic markers: person, palace a
space, temporal discourse, and social deixis.

A text is defined as a physical product, a written monologue,

and a communicative occurrence which meets seven standards or
conditions of textuality. In this unit we study one of these,
namely cohesion. Cohesion, according to Halliday and Hasan
(١٩٧٦), links different parts of sentences or larger units of text,
e.g. the cross-referencing function of pronouns, articles, and some
adverbs (as in “The boy visited a new shop. However, he
couldn’t find any of the items on his shopping list.”) It
concerns the ways in which the components of the surface text i.e.
the actual words we hear or see are connected to each other within
a sequence. There are five major types of cohesive ties:
reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical ties.
١٤ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

١. REFERENCE
The use of referring expressions links different parts of a text.
To establish reference, we use lexical items as well as pronouns,
demonstratives, and comparatives.
a. Pronouns:
Most pronouns are used to link certain nouns in the text.
Pronouns can be either anaphoric, referring backwards to a
previously mentioned noun, or cataphoric referring forward to a
noun that follows. For example, in the sentence “Mary asked
him to tell her a story, and so Tom did”, while “her” is
anaphoric, used to refer backwards to “Mary”, “him” is
cataphoric, referring to “Tom”.
b. Demonstratives:
The demonstrative pronouns “this”, “that”, “these”, “those”
are also used as cohesive ties and are also either anaphoric or
cataphoric. In a sentence like “This is why I like ice cream”, we
assume that the reason was mentioned earlier, and so the tie is
anaphoric. However, in a sentence like “If you are applying for
a new job, you should remember this: punctuality and a
strong sense of commitment are the key to job keeping”, the
demonstrative “this” refers forward to a large chunk, namely
“punctuality … job keeping”, and so it is cataphoric.
c. Comparatives:
The comparative form of adjectives can also link to a referent.
For example, “I have seen nicer places” implies comparison
with the place being referred to. Also, in the sentence “We are
the best” includes comparison with other people, mentioned
previously.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ١٥

The use of referring expressions also includes the use of

“deictic markers”, i.e. expressions that point or refer to parts of
the discourse. These are of five types: person, place, time,
discourse, and social.
Person deixis: grammatical markers of participant roles, with
first person referring to speaker, second person to addressee(s),
and third person to others who are neither speaker nor addressee.
Shifting person reference can lead to confusion because the
referent being pointed to each time should be the same person.
Place / spacial deixis: Spatial or space deixis refers to show
the location of participants, distinguishing between “proximal”
(i.e. close to the speaker) and “distal” (far from the speaker). This
distinction is shown in demonstratives (this vs. that), adverbs
(here vs. there), verbs (come vs. go, bring vs. take), or phrases (in
front, at our place, back home, down river, uphill, downhill). An
interesting example here is how Egyptians say “I’m going up to
the cemetery” because it is usually on an elevation, while they
say “I’m going down to Alexandria” which is downriver.
Temporal deixis: refers to time relative to the time of
speaking, as in “now”, “then”, “yesterday”, “today”, “tomorrow”,
“next week”, “in a fortnight” To interpret these would be
impossible without a clue to what day it is at the moment of
speaking. We usually time frame our stories e.g. “once upon a
time”.
Discourse deixis: Discourse deixis keeps track of reference in
the unfolding discourse such as “in the following chapter”, “this/
that”, thus attending to distance. Distance is also a matter of
١٦ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

alignment and focus so that if we closely identify with an idea, it

is “close” and we are likely to refer to it as “this”, and vice versa.
Social deixis: codes social relationships between speakers
and addressees or audience. Absolute deictics are uniformly
added to a social role (e.g. titles like “your Honour”, “Mr.
President”) while relational deictics locate persons in relation to
the speaker by means of lexical items (e.g. “my husband”, “our
cousin”, “my boss”) or pronouns (tu, vous, , , the royal
“we”, the pronoun “we” in announcements by companies e.g.
“We are happy to inform you of our new …”).
٢. SUBSTITUTION
The second major type of cohesive ties is substitution. This
involves the use of one item to replace a class of items rather than
a specific one as with reference. They can be made for nominals,
verb groups and clauses, tying the marker and the group together.
a. Nominal: “Would you like an ice cream?” “No thanks,
I just had one.” (“One” here substitutes for “ice cream”.)
“I love these garments; I think I’ll take the blue one.”
(Here, “one” substitutes for “garments”.)
b. Verbal: “Did you eat?” “Yes I did.” (“Did” here
substitutes for “ate”.)
c. Clausal: “My teacher advised me to work on my style
and so I did.” (“So I did” substitutes for “I worked on my
style”.)
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ١٧

٣. ELLIPSIS
The third major type of cohesion is ellisis, which involves
naming the referent, then omitting or deleting it the second time it
is referred to. Like substitution, ellipsis can be nominal, verbal or
clausal.
a. Nominal: “Would you like to see another magazine? I
have many ^.” (The deleted noun is “magazines”.)
b. Verbal: “Were you sleeping?” “No, I wasn’t ^.” (The
deleted verb is “sleeping”.)
c. Clausal: “I don’t know how to use this vacuum
cleaner. I’ll have to learn ^ soon.” (The deleted clause
is “how to use this vacuum cleaner”.)
٤. CONJUNCTION
The fourth type of cohesive ties is conjunctions. These are
words that join sentences and help interpret the relation between
the clauses. They are of different forms including logical
sequence (thus, therefore, then, so, consequently); contrast
(however, in contrast, conversely), doubt/ certainty (probably,
possibly, certainly, indubitably); similarity (similarly,
likewise); expansion (for example, in particular). Such
conjunctions can function in additive, adversative, causal and
temporal relations.
a. Additive: “We studied the English lessons and solved
the math problems.”
b. Adversative: “She looked for a certain file all day in
vain. Yet, when she returned to the office, she found
the missing file under the desk.”
١٨ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

c. Causal: “She finally found the file, so she sent it to the

manager.”
d. Temporal: “Then, she hurried to a meeting.”
٥. LEXICAL TIES
The fifth type of cohesive ties is lexical cohesion. Lexical
ties can be either short (across short pieces of discourse) or long
(across large pieces of discourse). Sometimes, the same word or
synonym is used and repeated throughout the text. Other times,
related words are used, and this repetition of the same concept
strengthens the text cohesion.
a. Repetition: “They all enjoyed seeing the film.
Actually, the film had won three Oscars.”
b. Synonym: “He served in the army for three years.
The military service provided him with excellent
training in computer skills.”
c. Superordinate: “She got a bouquet of jasmines,
daisies and sunflowers. These flowers filled the room
with a sweet smell.”
d. Collocation: This means the habitual co-occurrence of
individual lexical items which are predictable due to the
context. E.g. “On examining the flower, he saw that its
petals, leaves and stem were all withered.” Another
example is “I couldn’t correct anything, my red pencil
was dull.”
The five major types of cohesion – reference, substitution,
ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical ties – are all effective in showing
explicit links between parts of the text, and keeping it unified.
They are easy to locate in any text.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ١٩

Main Ideas:

Reference
* Pronouns * demonstratives
* Comparatives * deictic markers

Substitution
* nominal * verbal
* clausal
Major Types of
Cohesive Ties
Ellipsis
* nominal * verbal
* clausal

Conjunction
* Additive * adversative
* Causal * temporal

Lexical
* Repetition * synonym
* Superordinate
* Collocation
٢٠ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

EXERCISES:

١. Read the following and identify all cohesive ties:

In Memory of Grandfather
The person I want to introduce to you, died two years ago but
he still lives in my memory. Perhaps all grandfathers of the world
are remembered by their own children, but that one is mine.
He wasn’t like old people with round shoulders complaining
all the time about the sadness of life. He just thought that his
mind was always young and he whistled all day. The training in
the army gave him a straight posture which he was very proud of.
You couldn’t ask him about the war. He became serious looking
far away, then he would say that he forgot it all. Like a bee, he
never really stopped working.
After he retired, his favourite pastime was to feed the birds.
One shining morning, I was sleeping when I heard him calling me
softly from the kitchen. I couldn’t believe what I saw: sparrows
in the house! They were eating on the carpet near the kitchen
door. I thought I was dreaming so I rubbed my eyes and clapped;
then the birds flew away! Another day, my sister and I asked him
about death. He said when he dies, we shouldn’t forget to feed
the birds, especially in wintertime.
A few weeks before he left, he told us he was worried about
leaving grandmother alone. He also told us we shouldn’t be sorry
for him when he goes. However, he often visits me in dreams and
he still whistles!
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٢١

٢. In the following article, identify the social deictic terms that

refer to Ms. Velten.
Pudding Poisoner Gets Life Sentences
A ٦٨-year-old mother of six received three life prison
sentences and an additional ١٥ years for poisoning two husbands,
a lover, her father, and an aunt because they were a nuisance.
Maria Velten admitted killing her second and third husbands
and her lover between ١٩٧٦ and ١٩٨٢ by feeding them blueberry
puddings laced with a herbicide.
The judge said Velten killed the three men because she felt
they were a nuisance. Greed was an additional motive in the case
of her third husband, who left her money, they said.
• Why did the author use deictic terms rather than names?
• How many men were killed? How many husbands did Ms.
Velten have?
• Who is the “they” in the final line?
٢٢ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٢٣

Unit ٣ TEXTUALITY

Objectives:
By the end of this unit, students should be able to:
١- Tell the seven standards used to classify texts: cohesion,
coherence, intentionality, accept ability, informativity,
situationality, and intertextuality.
٢- Explain how each of the seven standards is achieved in a
text and how it functions.

Cohesion is only one of the features characterizing a written

text. A text, i.e. a language unit with a definable communicative
function, characterized by such principles as cohesion, coherence
and informativeness. A distinction is made here between a
written text and spoken discourse. A text is a finished written
product while discourse is a dynamic process of spoken
expression. Also a text is a written monologue while discourse
comprises of spoken interaction. The study of texts, their
organization and characteristics constitutes the core of De
Beaugrande & Dressler’s (١٩٨١) work on textuality and text
linguistics. Texts can be classified into text types e.g. road signs,
news reports, poems, conversations, etc. on the basis of seven
standards of textuality. These are the standards of cohesion,
coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity,
situationality, and intertextuality.
٢٤ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

١. COHESION
Cohesion relates the parts of a text together through the use of
explicit, surface-structure ties, as seen in the previous unit. It
functions through the use of syntactic and semantic connectivity
of linguistic forms at a surface-structure level of analysis. Within
the discourse, cohesive ties or deictic markers function as
linguistic signals to promote cohesion at the local level.
٢. COHERENCE
This is the second standard or condition of a text. Underlying
coherence accounts for the underlying functional connectedness
or identity of a piece of language. It involves the study of such
factors as the language users’ knowledge of the world, the
inferences they make. Coherence usually depends on the use of
patterns / templates from scripts (i.e. certain goal-directed
context-dependent sets of actions, e.g. grocery shopping, or
classroom interaction), evident in clause selection and syntactic
markers. In script theory, once the grocery shopping script, for
example, has been established, it activates such lexical items as
canned goods, checkout counters, dairy products, shopping list, as
part of the script. The script is a mental construct that covers
many instances in the text, thus predicting an overall form of
discourse.
A concept is activated in the mind, and relations link between
the concepts which appear together, each link bearing a
designation of the concept it connects to. For example, in the
road sign “SLOW ROAD WORKS AHEAD”, “road” is
understood as location, “works” as an action, and “slow” as
action required of drivers rather than an adjective describing the
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٢٥

quantity of motion. Although such relations are not made explicit

in the text, they are activated by the readers as they make sense
out of the text.
Coherence relations are different types of causality,
concerning the ways in which one situation affects another. In the
sentence “John fell down and broke his legs”, “falling down”
is the cause of “breaking”. In “Adel could read and write
because he went to school”, being able to read and write is not
caused by going to school, but is a reasonable outcome. This
relation is one of reason where an action follows as a rational
response to some previous event. However, cause and reason are
different from the relation in the next sentence. In the sentence
“Sandra made some sandwiches and Dina ate them”,
Sandra’s action created the sufficient but not necessary conditions
for Dina’s action, and thus made it possible; this relation is called
enablement. Thus, Sandra’s making the sandwiches enabled
Dina to eat them, but did not cause her to eat them! Cause, reason
and enablement, however, are not involved in the sentence “The
child went to the fridge to get a bottle of milk”. The relation
here is one of purpose as it is an event or situation that is planned
to become possible via a previous event or situation. One more
relation between events or situations is arrangement in time,
which may move forwards or backwards. The sentence “The
child went to the fridge to get a bottle of milk” shows forward
directionality as going to the fridge is followed by getting the
bottle of milk. In contrast, the sentence “When they arrived at
the cinema, the film had already started” includes backward
directionality with the film starting first before their getting to the
cinema. Coherence is thus the outcome of recovering relations
٢٦ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

within a text by adding one’s knowledge to bring a textual world

together through inferencing. Text-presented knowledge interacts
with people’s stored knowledge of the world.
٣. INTENTIONALITY
While cohesion and coherence are relations related to the text
and its organization, intentionality is a user / reader-centred
feature of texts. The text producer / writer’s attitude and intention
in producing a text should be evident to both producer / writer and
receivers / readers. Cohesive ties and coherence related
inferences enable the receivers / readers to perceive the
producer’s / writer’s intentionality. Such intention could be seen
to inform, to entertain, to persuade, etc. receivers / readers would
tolerate errors in production as long as they perceive the
producer’s / writer’s intention. Jokes about a sleepy employee
with a pillow on his desk, for example, are used to entertain
readers, but can also be used to persuade people of the
inefficiency of the public sector bureaucracy, for instance.
٤. ACCEPTABILITY
Another feature of textuality is acceptability, concerning the
text receiver’s / reader’s attitude. The reader’s expectation is that
the language used is a cohesive, coherent text with some use or
relevance for the receiver. For example, the reader may want to
learn some knowledge or cooperate in a plan. This relates to the
text type: whether the text is a poem requiring appreciation of its
beauty, a washing machine manual providing information on how
to operate the machine, or the charter informing citizens of their
rights and obligations. Such acceptability also depends on the
social and cultural setting, determining what is culturally
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٢٧

acceptable (especially in the domains of politics and religion), and

how it is to be understood with such norms.
٥. INFOMATIVITY
Another essential feature of textuality is “informativity”, i.e.
to what extent the text is expected or unexpected, known or
unknown. For example, in the telephone company announcement,
Call us before you dig. You may not be able to
afterwards.
what the company means is for clients to call before they dig
as they might dig through an underground cable which may get
broken, cutting the phone service and giving them a severe
electric shock, so they won’t be able to call. This implicit
meaning needs some inference on the part of the readers to
process it. The more demanding this processing of information,
the more interesting the text is. However, caution is usually taken
not to overload the text to the point of hindering communication.
On the other hand, a text should be informative to a certain extent.
The assertion that “The sea is water”, for example, when made
to scientists, makes the text very marginal because it is very
uninformative. However, this uninformative piece may be
acceptable as a starting point for more informative chunks. The
text might continue like this “The sea is water in the sense
that water is the dominant substance; in fact it is a solution
of gases and salts as well as a vast number of living
organisms.” This continuation upgrades the informative content
of the text.
٦. SITUATIONALITY
The sixth standard of textuality is “situationality” concerning
how relevant the text is to the situation or context in which it
٢٨ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

occurs. For example, the road sign “SLOW ROAD WORKS

AHEAD” discussed above can be interpreted in different ways. It
can be read with “slow” describing the road works as going on
quite slowly, or instructing the drivers as to the speed of driving.
It is due to the context, or location where a certain class of readers
(car drivers) are likely to be asked for a particular action, that all
readers will only infer the second interpretation (i.e. to drive
slowly). Thus, the sense of the text is decided via the situation.
The above mentioned road sign text is also preferred to a longer
version explaining the same instruction. This economical version
is more appropriate due to the situation where drivers have limited
time and attention to read, understand and act upon the
instruction.
٧. INTERTEXTUALITY
The seventh standard of textuality is intertextuality. This
concerns how one text is dependent upon the knowledge of one or
more previously encountered texts. The road sign RESUME
SPEED, for example, can only be understood in relation to a
previous instruction to reduce speed. A clown making fun of
some public figures and caricaturing them can only be appreciated
by an audience familiar with the behaviour and sayings of those
persons. Certain genres of writing are based on intertextuality;
these include parodies, critical reviews, and reports, where the
text writer consults a prior text continually and text readers need
some familiarity with that prior text to appreciate the parody,
review, report, etc.
A written text, thus, can be judged as an effective text when it
is characterized by the above-mentioned seven standards of
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٢٩

textuality. These are obligatory characteristics, and a text failing

to be cohesive, coherent, acceptable, etc. fails to be a text.

Main Ideas
There are seven features which are used to classify texts.
١- Cohesion:
It relates the parts of a text together through the use of
syntactic and semantic forms.
٢- Coherence:
It is the underliyng functional connectedness of the text.
Coherence relations may be cause and result, purpose,
time, etc.
٣- Intentionality:
This is the intention of the writer: the previous features
should lead the reader to perceive the writer,s intentions.
٤- Acceptability:
It refers to how far the reader accepts the text content.
٥- Informativity:
It refers to how much information is included in the text.
٦- Situationality:
It refers to how relevant the text is to the situation or con
text in which it occurs.
٧- Intertextuality:
This concerns how one text is dependent upon the
knowledge of one or more previous ones.
٣٠ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

EXERCISES:
١. Analyze the first paragraph in this chapter in terms of the
seven standards of textuality.
٢. Choose a magazine or newspaper advertisement and
analyze it in terms of the seven standards of textuality.
٣. Choose a magazine or newspaper article and analyze it in
terms of the seven standards of textuality.
٤. In your opinion, which of the above standards of textuality
is most important in the study of poetry?
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٣١

Unit ٤ THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE &

IMPLICATURE
Objectives:
By the end of this unit, students should be able to:
١- Explain the four maxims which feature a successful
conversation.
٢- Recgnize them in a conversation.
٣- Explain how and why maxims can be violated , giving
examples.
٤- Define implicature and give examples of conversational
and conventional ones.

While written language is organized through cohesion, and

other standards of textuality, conversation has its own
organizational standards. The success of a conversation depends
not only on what speakers say but also on their whole approach to
the interaction. We assume that in a conversation the participants
will cooperate with each other when making their contributions.
People adopt a “cooperative principle” when they communicate:
they try to get along with each other by following certain
conversational “maxims” that underlie the efficient use of
language. Four basic maxims have been proposed by Grice
(١٩٧٥).
• The Maxim of Quality:
Do not say what you believe to be false.
Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
٣٢ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

• The Maxim of Quantity:

Make your contribution sufficiently informative for the
purposes of the conversation.
Do not make your contribution more informative or less
informative than necessary.
• The Maxim of Relevance:
Make sure that whatever you say is relevant to the
conversation.
• The Maxim of Manner:
Do not make your contribution obscure, ambiguous, or
difficult to understand.
According to Grice (١٩٧٥), speakers cooperate with each
other when communicating, attempting to be informative,
truthful, relevant and clear (maxims of quantity, quality, relation,
and manner). Listeners will normally assume that a speaker is
following these criteria.
However, speakers may violate the Cooperative Principle or
one of its maxims. Violation is not obvious at the time of the
utterance, as the hearer will not understand that the speaker has
deliberately lied, supplied insufficient information, been
ambiguous, or irrelevant. Such violations hamper communication
and do not lead to implicature. E.g.
A. I need a drink.
B. Try the Bell.
If B is adhering to the Cooperative Principle, several
implicatures arise out of this dialogue: e.g. the Bell must be a
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٣٣

place that sells drinks; it must be open (as far as B knows); it must
be nearby. If B is not being cooperative (e.g. if he knows that the
Bell is closed, or is the name of a greengrocer’s), he is violating
the maxims of quality and relevance. Deliberate violation of this
kind is uncommon and only occurs in special cases as sarcasm,
joking, or deliberate unpleasantness.
More likely is the inadvertent violation of conversational
maxims -- as would happen if B genuinely did not know that the
Bell was closed, and accidentally sent A to the wrong place. In
everyday conversation, misunderstandings often take place as
speakers make assumptions about what their listeners know, or
need to know, which turn out to be wrong. At such points the
conversation can break down and may need to be repaired with
the participants questioning, clarifying, and cross checking. The
repairs are quickly made in the following example through the use
of such pointers as “I told you” and “sorry”.
a. Have you got the time?
b. No, I told you, I lost my watch.
a. Oh, sorry, I forgot.
But it is quite common for participants not to realize that there
has been a breakdown, and to continue conversing at cross-
purposes. However, the maxims can be deliberately violated for
certain effects; speakers may violate the maxim of quality “for
pretend” as in the following example.
c. Mommy?
m. mhmm.
c. How old are you for pretend?
٣٤ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

m. oh. (١) I’m about ١٢ years for pretend.

c. ah. You’re older
Such violation does not lead to implicature but just enables
participants to suspend the maxims for a while, and so is the case
in teasing, joking, and child play.
In contrast, speakers often lead to certain inferences, or
implicature, when they break (or ‘flout’) these maxims; for
example they may be sarcastic, try to be different, or clever, etc.
Listeners may then draw inferences from what speakers have said
(the literal meaning of the utterance) concerning what they have
not said (conversational implicature). When S flouts a maxim, it
is obvious to H at the time of the utterance that S has deliberately
and quite openly failed to observe one or more of the maxims.
This is often done because the maxims clash.
X. What time is it?
Y. Some time between ten and eleven.
In this example, to give sufficient information (observing
Maxim of Quantity) would entail telling something S does not
have adequate evidence for (violating the Maxim of Quality). For
a different response, see the following example.
B. What time is it?
C. It’s ١٠,٤٤ and ٣٥ seconds.
B here flouts the Maxim of Quantity by providing too much
information, implying that he is bored, that they are late, or that
they are early, depending on the context. In the next example,
A. How are you?
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٣٥

B. I’m dead!
B flouts the Maxim of Quality to imply that he or she is
extremely tired. Similarly, speaker B flouts another maxim in the
following example.
A. What happened to your flowers?
B. A dog got into the garden.
B flouts the maxim of Relevance to imply that the dog
probably ruined the flowers. Similarly, in the next husband-wife
conversation,
a. I’ll take the children out.
b. I veto i-c-e-c-r-e-a-m.
The wife spells out “ice-cream”, thus flouting the Maxim of
Manner to prevent the children from figuring out what she is
saying. Similarly, the following service encounter exchange
flouts the maxim of Relevance.
X. Do you do buttonholes?
Y. She’ll be back in an hour.
Assuming Y’s response is relevant, we infer that the person
who does buttonholes will be back shortly.
Implicature, thus, refers to inferences or implications
deduced from the utterance, on basis of the Cooperative Principle
which governs efficiency and acceptability of conversations. For
example, “there’s some torn paper on the floor” could mean
“you ought to pick it up” depending on the context. Implicatures
have been classified into conversational implicatures, which are
inferences calculated on the basis of the maxims and requiring a
٣٦ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

particular context, and conventional ones (not restricted to a

particular context, and not derived from these principles, but
simply attached by convention to particular expressions like
“therefore” as in “He’s old, therefore he’s wise”). Consider
the following examples of conventional implicature.
a. Do you want some cake?
b. I am on a diet. (i.e. No.)

a. Did you like the party?

b. Don’t ask. (i.e. No.)
Such responses flout the maxims of relevance and quantity
respectively, but the implied answer - no- is easy to infer,
regardless of the context in which such utterances occurred.
However, in some cases the implicature is not so easy to infer
regardless of the context and shared background knowledge is
needed to arrive at S’s intended meaning. Consider the following
examples.
A. Do you like my new hat?
B. It’s pink!

A. Did you like the party?

B. They served ice cream.

A. Coffee?
B. It’d keep me awake all night.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٣٧

Most people will understand the B responses as implying

“no” as an answer. However, if both A and B know that pink is
B’s favourite colour, that B loves ice-cream, and that B has to stay
up all night to study for an exam, the implicature then would be
“yes”. Such conversational implicature is not fixed, but rather
based on a considerable amount of shared knowledge between
speaker and hearer.

Main Ideas:
A successful conversation depends on the participants’
cooperation with each other.
١- When people communicate, they follow certain conversational
maxims.
a. Quality (truthfulness)
b. Quantity ( information adequacy)
c. Relevance
d. Manner (clarity)
٢- Violation of these maxims hampers communication.
٣- Violation of the maxims may be either inadvertent or
deliberate.
٤- Implicature refers to inferences or implications deduced
from the utterance. Types of implicature are:
conversational and conventional.
٣٨ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

EXERCISES:

Which maxim has not been observed? Decide whether it has

been flouted or violated? What implicature(s) might be drawn?
a. I really liked that dinner.
b. I’m a vegetarian.

a. We’re going to the movies.

b. I’ve got an exam tomorrow.

a. Did you get the milk and the eggs?

b. I got the milk.

a. Is he nice?
b. She seems to like him.

a. Do you know someone kind, honest and generous called

Catherine?
b. I know someone called Catherine.

Bill. Tom, Susan just loves your book! Don’t you, darling?
Susan. More soup anybody?

a. Do you want an umbrella?

Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٣٩

b. No, I really want to stand out here in this soaking rain to

get wet!

Strangers on a train:
A. What do you do?
B. I’m a teacher.
A. Where do you teach?
B. In Alaska!
A. Sorry I asked!

A. George, I’m afraid you failed philosophy.

B. What great news!

X. Do you think Mary will come?

Y. Either she will come or she won’t.

A. When will you do your homework?

B. There’s a football match on.

A. Did you have a good weekend?

B. With exams on next week?

A. I like novel and drama.

B. I like drama too.
٤٠ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

A. I hope the children don’t mess up during the party.

B. Children are children.

A. What do you think of Bill?

B. I think he’s a snake!
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٤١

Unit ٥ SPEECH ACTS

Objectives:
By the end of this unit, students should be able to:
١- Describe how an utterance can perform actions.
٢- Recognize direct and indirect speech acts.
٣- Explain the difference between performative and
constative utterances.
٤- Explain the meaning of loucution, illocution and
perlocution.
٥- Tell the different types of speech acts, giving examples.
٦- Give examples to show the different felicity conditions in
conversation.

Several actions can be performed by either speaking or

physical gesture. For instance, people may congratulate by saying
“congratulations”, by giving someone a pat on the back, or the
thumbs up sign. Similarly, you can forbid someone to enter the
room by saying, “I forbid you to enter the room”, “Don’t come
in now”, putting on a “No Entry” sign, or wagging your finger at
the person. Try to think of other actions that can be performed by
either speaking or physical gesture.
Thus, words can perform actions as well as simply describe a
state of affairs. The speaker who utters “There’s a spider in
your hair” does not just wish to inform the hearer of the existence
of the spider, but also to warn H to remove it, and/ or mock H
who cannot feel the spider. Similarly, the utterance “Someone’s
٤٢ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

eaten all the ice-cream” could be heard as a complaint expressing

annoyance, requesting repair by getting some ice cream, as an
inquiry asking who ate it, or as an accusation to the H of having
used it without involving the S. Also, the utterance “He’s got a
gun” can be heard as a warning not to provoke the person being
referred to. It has been seen, thus, that assertion of the state of
affairs is not the only function of such declarative sentences.
Rather, these are used to perform various actions such as warning,
complaining, accusing, inquiring, etc.
Speech acts and sentence types:
Utterances may consist of different types of sentences. These
may be declarative sentences such as the above (e.g. I have a
dream), interrogative sentences (e.g. Are you following? Why
didn’t you answer the phone?), or imperative ones (e.g. Open
the door. Let’s go. Have a seat.) Regardless of the sentence
type, utterances can be used not only to describe a state of affairs,
but also to do things, performing various speech acts. Consider
the sentence type of the following utterances.
١. I would like the salt.
٢. You can pass the salt.
٣. Have you got the salt?
٤. Why don’t you pass the salt?
٥. Pass the salt, please.
٦. Get me the salt.
Although these sentences vary, including declarative (١ ٢),
interrogative (٣ ٤) and imperative ones (٥ ٦), they can all be used
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٤٣

by S to perform the same speech act, namely requesting, though

with varying degrees of politeness.
It is also worth mentioning that sentence types and speech
acts do not necessarily correspond. For example, to ask for
information, we can typically use an interrogative (Who took my
ice cream? / Did you take my ice cream?) but also
declaratives (I wonder where my ice cream has gone! / I left
an ice cream here!), or imperatives (Tell me what happened
to my ice cream! Inquire for me about my ice cream.)
Similarly, to make an invitation, we can also use declaratives
(we’re having dinner and would love to have you come
over), interrogatives (Would you like to come over tomorrow
evening for dinner?), or imperatives (Come over and have
dinner with us tomorrow at seven).
Performative Utterances:
Austin (١٩٦٢) was the first to draw attention to the many
functions performed by utterances as part of interpersonal
communication; a theory which analyses the role of utterances in
relation to the behaviour of speaker and hearer in interpersonal
communication. In particular, he pointed out that many
utterances do not communicate information, but are equivalent to
actions. When someone says, “I promise…”, “I apologize…”, “I
will” (at a wedding), “I name this ship…”, the utterance
immediately conveys a new psychological or social reality. An
apology takes place when someone apologizes, and not before. A
ship is named only when the act of naming is complete. In such
cases to say is to perform. Austin, thus, called these
performative utterances (i.e. utterances where action is
performed by virtue of the utterance having been uttered (I
٤٤ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

apologize, I baptize you, I promise). Such expressions of

activity are not analyzable in terms of truth-value terms. (They
are different from constative utterances, i.e. descriptive
statements that solely convey information, and that can be true or
false. In particular, performative utterances are not true or false.
(If A says “I name this ship…”, B cannot then say “that’s not
true”.) Such performative utterances not only perform a speech
act but simultaneously describe the speech act itself. A
performative utterance includes a performative verb that explicitly
describes the intended speech act. Examples of these are the
following.
I promise I’ll be there.
I warn you this gun is loaded.
I apologize.
I thank you.
I order you to sit down.
I admit I was a fool.
In non-performative utterances, in contrast, the H is left to
infer the S’s intention as in the following examples. Non-
performative utterances can also be used to perform an illocution
but unlike performative ones, they do not explicitly name the
intended illocutionary act and are often called indirect speech
acts.
I’ll be there.
This gun is loaded.
I’m sorry.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٤٥

Thank you.
You must sit down.
I was a fool.
The main difference between performative and non-
performative utterances is that performative utterances use verbs
indicating the speech act intended by the speaker. What makes a
verb performative is that it can be performed by speaking (as in
such verbs as apologize, thank, warn, name, announce, admit
e.g. I admit I was wrong”, vs. “I think / know I was wrong”), it
is under the control of the S i.e. locutionary rather than a
perlocutionary effect (e.g. “I apologize to you”, vs. “I amuse
you”, or “I bore you”), and is in the present tense first person (I
or we) e.g. “We promise to visit you soon” as opposed to “He
admits that he was silly” which is a mere report, or “I warned
you several times to stop” which is also a report that can be
true or false.
Locution, Illocution, Perlocution:
In speech act analysis, we study the effect of utterances on the
behaviour of speaker and hearer, using a threefold distinction.
١. First, we recognize that a communicative act of saying
takes place (locutionary act). The locution is the actual
form of words uttered by S and their semantic meaning.
٢. Second, we look at the illocutionary force or act that is
performed as a result of the speaker producing an
utterance, where saying is the same as doing as in
apologizing, betting, promising, welcoming, warning,
defined with reference to the intentions of speakers while
speaking. It has been seen how different locutions can
٤٦ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

have the same illocutionary force (see the pass-the-salt

examples above). It is also worth noting how the same
locution can have different illocutionary forces depending
on the context. For example, “It’s hot in here” could be a
request to open the window or an offer to open it oneself.
٣. Thirdly, we look at the perlocutionary effect that the S’s
utterance has on H who may feel amused, persuaded,
warned as a consequence. This refers to the actual result of
the locution. It may or may not be what the S wants to
happen but it is caused by the locution and defined by H’s
reaction. In other words, the illocutionary act and the
perlocutionary effect may not coincide. If I warn you
against a particular course of action, you may or may not
heed my warning, you may get scared, or laugh at my silly
warning.
Types of Speech Acts:
Several attempts have been made to classify speech acts into a
small number of speech act types. The most recognized of these
is Searle’s approach, recognizing five basic types:
١. Directives: S tries to get H to do something e.g. begging,
pleading, commanding, demanding, requesting, asking,
challenging, ordering, suggesting, warning
٢. Commissives: S commits himself or herself (in varying
degrees) to a certain future course of action e.g.
promising, guaranteeing, pledging, swearing, vowing,
offering, threatening
٣. Representatives: S conveys belief about/ commitment to
the truth of a proposition (with varying degrees) e.g.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٤٧

stating, describing, asserting, hypothesizing, affirming,

admitting, concluding, denying, reporting
٤. Expressives: S expresses an attitude or feeling about a
state of affairs e.g. thanking, apologizing, welcoming,
sympathizing, deploring, congratulating, condoling.
٥. Declarations: S’s utterance brings about a new external
status or condition of an object or situation solely by
making an utterance. Such utterances only count if the
speaker has the appropriate authority to perform these acts.
e.g. christening, marrying, resigning, baptizing, declaring,
sentencing, firing, divorcing
Felicity conditions:
Speech acts are successful only if they satisfy certain
conditions / criteria. For example, a threat should involve an
action that is undesirable to the H rather than to the S; otherwise
the threat would be “infelicitous”, i.e. unsuccessful. Thus, “If you
don’t clean up, I won’t give you pocket money” is a felicitous
threat, while “If you don’t give me pocket money, I won’t eat”
is not. Austin postulates a number of conditions for the felicity or
success of various speech acts. First, the “preparatory”
conditions have to be right: the person performing the speech act
has to have the authority to do so. This is hardly an issue with
such acts as apologizing, promising, or thanking, but it is an
important constraint on the use of such acts as fining (by a traffic
patrol), baptizing (by a priest), arresting (by a policeman),
sentencing (by a judge), and declaring war (by a political leader)
where only certain people are qualified to use these utterances. It
should also be about something that would not ordinarily happen,
٤٨ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

-- as in I promise to take you out as opposed to *I promise to

breathe. -- and that the act promised would be beneficial to H.
e.g. *I promise that I’ll punch you / that tomorrow is Friday
Then, the speech act has to be executed in the correct manner:
in certain cases there is a procedure to be followed exactly and
completely: e.g. in baptizing. In others certain expectations have
to be met (one can only welcome with a pleasant attitude).
Additionally, “sincerity” conditions have to be met. The
speech act must be performed in a sincere manner. Apologizing,
guaranteeing, and vowing are effective only if speakers mean
what they say. Affirm and insist are valid only if the speakers are
not lying. S must genuinely intend to carry out the act he
promises e.g. *I promise that I’ll jump over the pyramid if I
pass my exams is impossible except for superman.
Also, content conditions have to do with the meaning of a
promise, an apology, etc. For a promise, it has to be a future act;
it also has to be about an act that will be performed by the S e.g.
*I promise that I started the dishwasher / *I promise that
you’ll make a wonderful dessert.
Ordinary people automatically accept these conditions when
they communicate and only depart from them for very special
reasons. e.g. “Will you shut the door?” is appropriate only if a)
the door is open; b) the speaker has a reason for making a request;
c) the hearer is in a position to perform the action. If any of these
conditions does not obtain, a special interpretation of the speech
act has to apply. It may be intended as a joke, or sarcasm.
Alternatively, there may be doubt about the speaker’s visual
ability or even sanity.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٤٩

Direct and indirect speech acts:

Direct interpretation comes from linguistic features of an
utterance e.g. most likely expression. For instance, interrogative
structure is most typical of directives; imperative structure of
directives; and declarative structure of expressives, commissives,
representatives and declarations. Direct speech acts relate directly
between their linguistic structure and the work they are doing. In
indirect speech acts, the speech act is performed indirectly
through the performance of another speech act.
See the following indirect speech acts, specifically directives:
How many times do I have to tell you?
We need this photocopied for the ٤ o’clock meeting.
I’d like some coffee, please.
Let’s give Sarah a call now.
Could you do the dishes?
Where are the matches?
What happened to the salt?
Is Mona there?
How would it look if you were to arrive late?
Directives thus can be performed not only through
imperatives, but also by stating a personal need or desire, asking
for permission, and asking about ability or need or whereabouts of
a requested object.
٥٠ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

Main ideas:
١- Words con perform actions ( e.g. warn ) .
٢- Sentence type and speech acts do not necessarily
correspond.
٣- Utterances can perform many functions as part of
interpersonal communication.
٤- Performative utterances refer to the situation where to say
is to perform.
٥- Constative utterances are descriptive statements.
٦- In speech analysis we consider:
a- the locutionary act.
( the actual words uttered by the speaker and their
semantic meaning ).
b- The illocutionary force act
( the act performed as a result of the utterance ).
c- The perlocutionary effect
( the effect that the utterance has on the receiver)
٧- Types of speech acts:
* directives * commissives.
* representatives * expressives.
* declarations.
٨- Speech acts are successful if they satisfy the following
felicity conditions:
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٥١

a- The person performing the speech act has to have the

authority to do so.
( preparatory )
b- The speech act has to be performed in the correct
manner.
c- Sincerity conditions have to be met.
d- Content conditions have to be met.
٩- There are direct and indirect speech acts.
Direct speech acts ( they relate directly between the linguistic
structure and the work they are doing. )
Indirect speech acts ( they don’t relate directly between the
linguistic structure and the work they are doing.)

EXERCISES:
١. Think of at least five acts that you can perform by using
either words or gestures. Can you think of any acts that
can only be performed by using words?
٢. Give as many different illocutions as you can for the
following locutions: “I’m sorry” and “This gun is loaded”.
Describe the context in which each one would apply.
٣. Choose a particular illocutionary force (e.g. thanking,
apology, request, threat) and give at least five different
locutions which could express that force.)
٤. Give three possible perlocutions for the locution: “I love
tea.”
٥٢ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

٥. Decide whether the following utterances are performative

or not. Explain why.
a) You congratulate me.
b) I apologize.
c) I envy you.
d) I warned you not to go.
e) Switch off the TV.
f) We convince everyone with our arguments.
g) I command you to leave immediately.
٦. In each of the following dialogues, decide whether B’s
utterance is a commissive, a directive, an expressive or a
representative.
a) A. I have a fever and a stomachache.
B: We’ll take you to the doctor in the afternoon.
b) A. What’s the weather like in Alexandria?
B: It’s raining cats and dogs.
c) A. My room is messy.
B. Clean it up!
d) A. You’ve thrown away my favourite toy.
B. I’m terribly sorry
٧. Mention the conditions in which the following declarations
would be felicitous:
a) I now pronounce you husband and wife.
b) I name this ship “Normandy II”.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٥٣

c) I sentence you to ١٠ years in prison.

d) I divorce you. / You are divorced.
e) I resign.
٨. Think of a possible context for each of the following
utterances and provide an appropriate response:
a) Let’s put the typewriter over there (gesture).
b) Oh, the sugar is all gone.
c) It is cold in here.
d) What are these shoes doing here?
e) These exams need to be graded.
f) What happened to the milk?
٩. The following are infelicitous speech acts. For each of
them, decide what speech act it looks like, and what makes
it infelicitous:
a) I promise that the weather will improve
tomorrow.
b) I’m sorry to hear about your success.
c) Thank you for breaking my typewriter.
d) Where did I hide the chocolate from you?
٥٤ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٥٥

Unit ٦ SPEECH EVENTS

Objectives:
By the end of this unit, students should be able to analyze the
following speech events into their components:
a- Compliments.
b- Complaints.
c- Advice.

Linguists have looked not only at speech acts, but at the larger
communicative event and the larger discourse structure. This is
because, to perform one speech act, sometimes the introduction is
much more important than the utterance including the speech act.
For example, in the speech event of introducing a speaker to the
audience, the one-utterance speech act of introducing is usually
limited to mentioning the name of the person. However, the event
usually consists of more than just that, the audience hope to learn
something about the speaker’s background, explaining why he or
she is worth listening to, and the topic of his or her talk.
Optionally, there are components that can put both speaker and
audience at ease or establish a link between the speaker and
presenter. Moreover, formulaic phrases like “it gives me
pleasure”, “our speaker today”, and “join me in welcoming”
are also attached to introduction speech events. Speech events
may be carried out in either written or oral modes. For example,
promises in marriage ceremonies – the “I do” and “I will”
statements – are oral contracts given before witnesses, family,
friends and the entire congregation in some communities.
٥٦ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

Promises to purchase a house, however, are written contracts

where the buyer and seller may never even meet each other in
person. In this unit, we will focus on three speech events related
to three speech acts: compliments, complaints, and advice.
Compliments are expressive speech acts. The speech event
includes not only the speech act utterance but also the entire
compliment interaction. As for their place, they occur between
the opening and the first topic of conversation, or before the
closing section. They function as a bonding device to smooth the
interaction. They help establish rapport and smooth transition
from greeting to the first topic of conversation. They also
reinforce and encourage good performance as in “great work” to
a student encouraging him or her to keep up the good work. They
also relate to thanks when offered to someone who did something
especially for us as in “wonderful food” by guest to hostess. They
also help soften criticism, curving the intonation to show that a
“but” criticism is coming shortly like “Good idea, but let’s think
about its implications in the long run”. The structure of the
compliment speech event can be described as follows, with the
items in parentheses being optional ones.
(Elicitation) Compliment (Thanks) Acknowledgment
(agree/ deny/ redirect focus) Bridge
It is possible that a compliment is elicited if we expect
something to be noticed but it isn’t, examples are “I’m not sure I
like my new haircut” or “I’m so excited about my new bag”.
This should result in a noticing compliment. Such elicitation is
optional. Once a compliment like “What a lovely haircut!” or “I
love your bag!” has been produced, it can be responded to in
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٥٧

various ways. It can be acknowledged with appreciation

(“thanks”) and agreement (“it is, isn’t it?). In acknowledging a
compliment, it is possible to deny any personal responsibility
(e.g. A friend gave it to me as a present) thus shifting the
credit to someone else. It is also possible to accept but
downgrade the compliment (as in “Thanks but it’s just a little
thing”), or shift the focus of the compliment elsewhere (as in “I
was really lucky to get it at the sale for half price”). Once the
compliment has been responded to, the recipient of such
compliment is expected to move on (bridge) to another topic.
Compliment speech events thus have a definite structure with
optional and obligatory parts, all aiming at smoothing
conversation and maximizing bonding, depending on where they
come in a conversation.
Complaint speech events also consist of more than just the
complaint speech act. Because they are face-threatening acts,
speakers can choose whether to complain or not, and if so whether
to complain directly or indirectly, softening the complaint with
hedges, or impersonalization of the complaint source. Most
people avoid complaints because they find it difficult to complain
and still maintain and give face; therefore, they usually address
them to people, who are not responsible for the offense, by
griping. Friends are often invited to share troubles either to
obtain advice (producing a genuine advice speech event) or just
expecting the listener to share rather than give advice, which
shows in many complainers disagreeing with the advice offered to
them. Complainers usually accompany their complaint (e.g. Do
you realize how loud this music is?”) with self-justification
for making the complaint (“you may not realize it but this is
٥٨ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

really bothering me. I have to get up real early to go to

work at ٥ am). If the complainer does not see any remedy
coming up, he or she may escalate the complaint using a threat
(e.g. “If you do not turn down this music right away, I’ll have
to report it to the police”). Interestingly, the complaint speech
event is negotiated by complainer and complainee. The
complainee may accept the complaint and apologize. They can
save face by providing an explanation why they did what they
did (e.g. “we had a party here and the loudspeakers had to
be placed in opposite corners to reach all parts of the
apartment”), or promise forbearance (“Won’t happen
again.”) Either party may suggest a remedy and they may
negotiate it to reach some compromise. In worse scenarios, the
complainee may deny the problem altogether (“Why are you
getting so upset? It’s lovely music.”) or refuse responsibility
(“It’s not my fault you can’t sleep”). They may also refer to
their personal relationship (“I thought you were my friend”).
As can be seen, the speech event is the result of the interaction
and cooperation of both parties.
Another speech event is that of giving advice. Advice
seeking and giving is common to both radio and television call-in
shows, and advice columns in newspapers and magazines. To
start with, radio / television call-in show advice speech-event
usually consists of many of the following components:
Opening participant identification problem
statement symptom negotiation diagnosis
advice advice negotiation advice
acceptance / thanks pre-closing closing.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٥٩

After the opening, greeting the expert and identifying himself

or herself, the caller usually poses a question that reveals the
problem to be solved by the expert. If such statement does not
come readily, the expert often asks, “What is your question?”,
which is then responded to by problem identification. E.g.
a. I have about four trees in the house when I moved
in and they’re doing pretty well, but I’m not real
experienced at pruning and I was wondering if
there’s a good book with good illustrations that
shows you exactly how to do it.
Before advice is given, the caller is usually asked about the
symptoms of the problem. . the problem is then diagnosed, and
advice is usually negotiated. For example,
b. so water deeply using one of those soaking hoses.
a. But won’t that use up a lot of water?
b. Not as much as you think. You only need to do
this maybe twice this summer, but DEEP watering
is the key.
Once advice has been negotiated, it is then accepted,
sometimes reluctantly, “Well, thanks”. The pre-closing follows,
including a compliment to the expert,
a. Thanks a lot. I really like your show.
b. Thank you, that’s very nice to hear. Call back and
let me know how it works out.
a. I will. Thanks again.
b. Thank you for your call.
٦٠ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

Then the expert usually closes off the call and offers another
closing, preaching the audience on more general issues. Such
structural components of the advice-seeking and giving are
common to personal, medical, and household expert programs. It
is also interesting in all such advice-giving events, how the
advice-giver tries not to threaten the caller’s face, by not blaming
the caller or showing off superiority.

Main ideas:
١- A speech event takes place according to certain discourse
structures.
٢- Such structures include optional and abligatory parts.
٣- Compliments, as speech events, include not only the
speech act utterance but also the entire compliment inter-
action. In this case, acknowledgment is obligatory. while
elicitation and thanks are optional parts.
٤- There are predictable structures for complaint and advice
speech events.
( Refer to the text. )

EXERCISES:
• Record one advice call-in show in English or Arabic.
Transcribe it (i.e. write down the conversation word for
word as you hear it, specifying who said what). Then
identify its components and compare it to the items listed in
your lessons. Which items were missing? Any new items?
• Record one call-in show that constitutes one speech event.
Transcribe the conversation. Then, identify its components.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٦١

• Your neighbours are making a very loud noise at ٣,٠٠ a.m.

and you have an exam tomorrow morning. Compose a
dialogue between you and them complaining about the
situation. If the situation is not resolved, write a letter of
complaint to their father who is working abroad. Compare the
dialogue and the letter in terms of the different components of
the speech event of complaining.
٦٢ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٦٣

Unit ٧ POLITENESS
Objectives:
By the end of this unit, students should be able to:
١- Recognize the different levels of politeness in an utterance
٢- Explain Leech’s maxims and how they function.

When communicating, we usually choose to imply rather than

assert an idea; or choose an indirect directive like “Well, I really
must get on with my work now” rather than a direct directive as
“Go home”. Consider the following imperative structures all
functioning as directives.
Clean up the bathroom floor.
Peel these onions.
Pass the salt.
Take a look at this.
Have a seat.
Have some more cake.
Notice how these have been arranged from least polite to
most polite, with the first requesting some action from H for the
benefit of S, while the last two involve benefit to H, so that they
are interpreted as offers rather than requests. Leech (١٩٨٣)
proposed a TACT maxim reflecting this tendency: “Minimize
the cost to other; maximize the benefit to other.” Hence, the
use of minimizers to reduce the implied cost to H (e.g. “Just pop
upstairs and visit us” or “Hang on a second”) as opposed to
imposing and directness when the utterance involves benefit to H
٦٤ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

as in “Have a chocolate”. Moreover, by being less direct when

making a request like “would you mind helping me with the
shopping?” rather than “Help me with the shopping”, S sounds
like he is asking permission and giving H the freedom to comply
or refuse. Requests, thus, become more polite as they become
more indirect. In accepting offers, Ss also minimize cost to H as
in the following dialogue.
A. Do you want a lift?
B. Well, if you’re going near the campus, yes please.
Thus, B tries to minimize A’s going out of her way by making
acceptance conditional on her not taking her out of her way so as
to minimize cost for her.
Politeness is also at issue when offering praise or dispraise.
The APPROBATION maxim goes like this: “Minimize
dispraise of other; maximize praise of other”. When
responding to a question like “Do you like the cake?”, it is more
polite to praise, saying “yes I do” than to dispraise, saying “not
really”. However, if H wants to dispraise, he or she is expected
to minimize such dispraise by following an indirect route, saying
something like “Did you make it yourself?” or “Is it a sponge
cake?” thus withholding praise and still avoiding explicit
dispraise. Similarly, consider the following example.
A. I’ve dyed my hair blonde.
B. You look beautiful. (praise = most polite)
You look different. (Implied dispraise)
You look awful. (Dispraise = least polite)
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٦٥

Indirectly implying dispraise is thus more polite than outright

dispraise. Also compare the possible responses to this praise.
X. Her performance was outstanding!
Y. Yes wasn’t it!
Compare this with agreement to self-praise, which would be
very impolite.
A. Your performance was outstanding!
B. *Yes wasn’t it!
It can be seen that other praise is much more polite than self-
praise. It also shows in reluctance to dispraise others as in “You
could have been more careful”; “Her performance was not
as good as we’d expected”.
A. Do you like these apricots?
B. I’ve tasted better.
Additionally, Leech proposes a GENEROSITY maxim
which encourages speakers to “Minimize benefit to self;
maximize cost to self”. This usually applies to offers and
requests. Examples of this are “I can lend you my car” as
opposed to “*You can lend me your car”; and “You must
come and have dinner with us” as more polite than “*we must
come and have dinner with you”. Also, compare the generous
request “I wouldn’t mind / could use a cup of tea” with the
less polite “Can I have another cup of tea?” There is a
tendency to suppress references to S in offers as in “You could
borrow my car” as more polite than “*I can lend you my car.”
Another speaker-oriented politeness maxim is the
MODESTY maxim encouraging speakers to “Minimize praise
٦٦ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

of self; maximize dispraise of self”. It is definitely more polite

to say “How stupid of me!” than “*How clever of me!”. Also,
when offering a gift people politely say “Please accept this
small gift” rather than “*this large gift”.
Another maxim is the AGREEMENT maxim, i.e.
“Minimize disagreement between self and other and maximize
agreement between self and the other”. When agreeing, this is
usually exaggerated as in the following example:
a. This was an interesting film, wasn’t it?
b. Yes, definitely.
However, when disagreeing, participants usually try to hedge
or minimize such disagreement.
c. English is difficult to learn.
d. Yes, but the grammar is easy.
The form “yes, but” is quite useful in hedging disagreement.
Finally, the SYMPATHY maxim postulates that speakers
“Minimize antipathy and maximize sympathy between self and
other”. It is frequently used in congratulations and condolences.
That is why we would hear “I’m sorry to hear about your cat!”
as condoling on some misfortune like the cat’s death, but “I’m
delighted to hear about your cat!” as congratulating on a
fortunate event.
Several factors determine how polite we should be during
communication with others. These include distance, power and
urgency. Such factors are relevant to another work that touches
upon politeness, namely Brown and Levinson (١٩٨٧). They rank
politeness strategies on a scale from bald-on-record, through
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٦٧

positive politeness, negative politeness, to off-record strategies.

The choice of which type of strategy to employ is based on
speakers' assessment of three factors: ١) speaker-hearer relative
status/ power, ٢) their social distance, and ٣) the weightiness of
the imposition in a particular culture.

Main ideas:
١- To produce more polite utterances, we usually imply
rather than assert an idea. We also use indirect directives
rather than direct one.
٢- Leech ( ١٩٨٣ ) proposed the following maxim:.
a- Minimize the cost to other; maximize the benefit to
other.
( the TACT maxim )
b- Minimize dispraise of other; maximize praise of other
( the APPROBATION maxim )
c- Minimize benefit to self; maximize cost to self;
( the Generisity maxim )
d- Minimize praise of self; maximize dispraise of self.
(The Modesty maxim )
e- Minimize disagreement between self and other;
Maximize agreement between self and other.
( the Agreement maxim )
f- Minimize antipathy and maximize sympathy between
self and other.
( the Sympathy maxim )
٦٨ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

٣- Several factors determine how polite we should be during

conversation with others. Namely.
a- Distance.
b- Power.
c- Urgency.

EXERCISES
١. Arrange the following utterances from most polite to least
polite and indicate which of leech’s politeness maxims
applies here.
a) Could I possibly ask you to close the window?
b) Close the window.
c) Can you close the window?

a) Would you like some juice?

b) Have some juice.
c) Could I possibly ask you to have some juice?

What do you think of my new haircut?

a) Did you cut it yourself?
b) Your hair looks terrible!
c) I think you should change your hairdresser.
d) The old haircut suits you better.
Your cake tastes wonderful!
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٦٩

a) It’s a simple recipe.

b) Everybody likes my cooking.
c) Have another slice.
٢. Complete the following:
a- Some of the factors which determine politeness are
……, …….. and ……… .
b- How stupid of me ! is an example of the ……. Maxim.
c- You can berrow my car:
is an example of the …….. maxim.
d- Would you mind helping me with the shopping ? is an
example of the… maxim.
٧٠ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٧١

Unit ٨ TURN TAKING

Objectives:
By the end of this unit, students should be able to:
١- Explain how turn – taking can be signaled in conversation.
٢- Tell how the listener may signal that he wants to talk.
٣- Explain:
a- turn units.
b- competitive interruption.
c- culture and turn – taking.

We have already looked at cooperation and politeness in

spoken discourse. In this and the next units, we will have a
chance to examine conversational structure, where conversation
consists of a sequence of turns. The contribution of each
participant is seen as part of a co-ordinated and rule-governed
behavioural interaction. The most widely recognized
conversational convention is that speakers take turns at talk; but
how do speakers know that it is their turn to speak? How do they
avoid overlapping and interrupting on regular basis? In many
formal situations, such as committee meetings, police
interrogations, job interviews, and classroom interaction, there are
many explicit markers showing that a speaker is about to yield the
floor, and indicating who should speak next. E.g. “I think Mr
Smith will know the answer to this question.” This can
happen in informal situations too e.g. “What do you think,
John?” But there, the turn-taking cues are usually more subtle.
٧٢ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

Conversation is characterized by turn-taking: one participant,

A, talks, stops; another, B, starts, talks, stops; and so we obtain an
A-B-A-B-A-B distribution of talk across two participants. But as
soon as close attention is paid to this phenomenon, how such a
distribution is actually achieved becomes quite problematic.
First, there are the surprising facts that (considerably) less than ٥
of the speech stream is delivered in overlap (two speakers
speaking simultaneously), yet gaps between one person speaking
and another are quite rare and short (frequently measurable in just
a few micro-seconds and they average amounts measured in a few
tenths of a second). How is this orderly transition from one
speaker to another achieved with such precise timing and so little
overlap? A second puzzle is that, whatever the mechanism
responsible, it must be capable of operating in quite different
circumstances: the number of parties from two to twenty or more;
persons may enter and exit the pool of participants; turns at
speaking can vary from minimal utterances to many minutes of
continuous talk; and if there are more than two parties then
provision is made for all parties to speak without there being any
specified order or queue of speakers. In addition, the same
system seems to operate equally well both in face-to-face
interaction and in the absence of visual monitoring, as on the
phone.
In everyday conversation, people do not simply stop talking
when they are ready to yield the floor. Speakers have a variety of
signals to project the end of a turn. The signals cue the next
speaker to begin a turn. Since speakers wish to achieve smooth
turn transfer with minimum overlap, they must be able to
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٧٣

recognize the signals that show that the previous speaker is

ending a turn.
Body movement and eye contact are especially important.
While speaking, we look at and away from our listener in about
equal proportions; but as we approach the end of a turn, we look
at the listener more steadily. Similarly, when talking to a group
of people, we often look more steadily at a particular person, to
indicate that in our view this should be the next speaker.
Additionally, slowing of tempo, vowel elongation, and falling
intonation all help to signal the end of a turn, a place for an
exchange in turns, sometimes called a transition-relevance place,
or TRP. Although turns are usually nicely timed, overlaps do
happen. In fact, overlaps (not interruptions) are thought to show
alignment between the communication partners. Syntactic
completion can also signal a TRP. For example, assume that the
speaker says, “If you try to use that program, you’ll run into
trouble.” The speaker has a slight pause after “program”, and
the listener may give some backchannel signal (e.g. umhmmm).
The speaker has projected the end of the turn with the use of “if”.
Until the “then-clause” is finished, the next speaker won’t
normally try to take a turn. Nonverbal signals too may serve this
function. A change in gaze direction (at or away from the
listener) can indicate the end of a turn. Or, if the speaker begins
to raise his arms at a possible transition place, listeners can project
when the turn will end. Again, the next speaker won’t normally
try to take a turn until the speaker’s arms are lowered.
Listeners are not passive in all of this. Here too there are
several ways of signaling that someone wants to talk next. Most
obviously, the first person in a group to start speaking, after the
٧٤ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

completion of a turn, will usually be allowed to hold the floor.

More subtly, we can signal that we want to speak next by an
observable increase in body tension – by leaning forward, or
producing an audible intake of breath. Less subtly, we can simply
interrupt – a strategy which may be tolerated, if the purpose is to
clarify what the speaker is saying, but which more usually leads
to social sanctions, like being regarded as rude or aggressive.
Well-aligned speakers may, however, complete turns in a
collaborative fashion. Overlaps that show collaboration are
“good” overlaps showing alignment between conversational
partners. (See examples ١-٣ above.) These usually occur most
frequently in the conversations of family and close friends, where
overlaps signal encouragement, where there are lots of
collaborative completions. As long as the message does not
become garbled, overlaps help create a great deal of camaraderie,
letting the speaker know that he or she is not talking to the wall.
Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (١٩٧٤) suggest that the
mechanism that governs turn-taking, and accounts for the
properties noted, is a set of rules with ordered options which
operates on a turn-by-turn basis, and can thus be termed a local
management system. One way of looking at the rules is as a
sharing device. Such an allocational system will require minimal
units over which it will operate, such units being the units from
which the turns at talk are constructed. These units are
determined by various features of linguistic surface structure: they
are syntactic units (sentences, clauses, noun phrases, etc.)
identified as turn units in part by intonation. A speaker will be
assigned initially just one of these turn units (although the length
of the unit is largely under the speaker’s control due to the
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٧٥

flexibility of syntax). The end of such a unit constitutes a point at

which speakers may change; i.e. TRP. At such points, the rules
that govern the transition of speakers then come into play, which
does not mean that speakers have to change at such points, they
may only do so. Such points must be predictable, which explains
the minimal overlap and the split-second speaker transition.
Another feature of turn-taking is the possibility of indicating
within a turn-unit that at its end some particular other party is
invited to speak next. Techniques for selecting next speakers
include such straightforward devices as the following: a question
(offer, request, etc.) plus an address term; various hearing and
understanding checks (who?, you did what?, pardon?, you
mean tomorrow?, etc.) which select prior speaker as next.
Based on the identification of turn-units, the following rules
apply (Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson ١٩٧٤): (C = current speaker;
N = next speaker; TRP = “transition relevance point”, i.e.
predicted end of a turn-unit).
a. If C selects N in current turn, C must stop speaking and
N must speak next immediately after the next TRP.
b. If C does not select N, then any party may self-select
and start at a TRP, and then C must leave the floor.
c. If neither of the above rules applies, C may but does not
have to continue.
Such rules apply at the end of every turn-unit. And once a
speaker has taken the floor, other parties are expected to listen
through the turn-unit at the end of which turn transfer becomes
relevant again.
٧٦ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

Such rules account for a number of observations of

conversational behaviour. First, only one speaker generally
speaks at any one time in a single conversation. Where overlaps
do occur, they tend to be precisely placed. That is to say, they
occur as N tries to get the turn at the same time as another party as
in example #١ below. Alternatively, overlaps may occur where
TRPs have been mis-predicted e.g. where a tag or address form
has been produced after a pause as in example #٢ below. The
rules thus allow to distinguish between unintended overlap (as in
examples #١ and #٢) and competitive interruption as in example
#٣.

١. Unintended Overlap:
A. I thought he got twenty pounds a day at that
job.
B. ┌ amazing, isn’t it?
C. └ they offered twenty but he insisted on twenty
five.
٢. Unintended Overlap:
X. I think you know him ┌ don’t you?
Y. └ yeah.
٣. Competitive Interruption:
O. I told you before I cannot ac-┌ cept any of this
trash.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٧٧

P. └ I completely
disagree and think you must think rationally
before you do anything so stupid.
The rules also predict that silence – i.e. absence of talk -- can
be assigned differently. It may be a) a gap before the sequence of
rules a-c apply again, b) a pause within a turn or before a
selected next-speaker has taken the floor, such silence being
assigned to him as he is expected to speak then, as in example #٤.
٤. Attributable pause
A. Is anything bothering you?
(٢,٥)
A. Yes or no?
(٢)
A. Eh?
B. No.
The turn-taking system in conversation is locally managed,
operating on a turn-by-turn basis, organizing just the transition
from current speaker to next. The local management of
conversation, thus, provides a strong motivation for participants
to listen carefully to what is being said so as to manage a smooth
turn-transition at a TRP without overlap or silence.
Despite these rules, overlapping talk does occur, though
not very often. When it does occur, one speaker generally drops
out rapidly. Then, when one of the two overlapping speakers
emerges in the clear, he usually recycles the art of the turn
obscured by the overlap. However, if neither party drops out
immediately, one of them competes for the floor by upgrading to
٧٨ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

win the floor. Such upgrading usually involves louder volume,

slower tempo, and lengthened vowels, signalled in the following
examples by capital letters.
٥. Competitive Overlap
A. Someone must have done it.
B. But this┌ person that DID IT IS GOT TO BE::
taken care of
C. └ If I see the person
Luckily for participants in a conversation, in addition to the
rules mentioned above, there are other signals that both speakers
and hearers attend to for the smooth management of turn-taking.
A current speaker usually signals when he intends to hand over
the floor, a practice similar to the “over” signal given on radio
transmitters. The most noticeable such signal is gaze: a speaker
usually breaks mutual gaze while speaking, returning gaze to the
addressee upon turn completion. However, this cannot be the
case in the absence of visual cues, as in telephone conversation.
This gaze-signal system is assisted by intonational cues. Speakers
usually rely heavily on a system of intonational signals that show
when an utterance has reached a point of possible completion,
using terminal pitch. Depending on both visual and intonational
cues, conversational participants orient to points of possible
completion to achieve smooth turn transfer with minimal gap or
overlap.
It is difficult to generalize, though, about “normal” or
polite conversational practice due to cultural variations. For
example in English, silence in conversation can be very
embarrassing except for a reason like moments of grief.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٧٩

Otherwise, speakers often interpret overlong pauses before a turn

as a signal of lack of understanding, lack of interest,
unwillingness to continue the topic of conversation, or even lack
of desire to interact. In some other cultures, like Apache, it is
normal for conversational participants to become silent as who
speaks when depends on social status of the participants. Thus,
participants of lower status are expected to stay silent if their
seniors wish to speak. It would be worthwhile to observe cultural
differences in the turn-taking system for a better understanding of
such cultural differences.
Main ideas:

١- Conversation consists of a sequence of turns.

٢- Informal situation, there are markers which show that the
speaker is about to yield the floor, and indicate who
should speak next.
٣- In everyday conversation, distribution of talk works
according to a system ( the local management system).
That system requires syntactic units ( turn units ). Using
that system and the other rules, a speaker can indicate the
end of his turn and the listener can signal his desire to
speak.
٤- The rules help us distinguish between unintended overlaps
and competitive interruption. They also predict silence in
conversation – both gaps and pauses. (transition-
relevance places)
٥- Overlaps may occur where TRPs . have been mis -
predicted.
٨٠ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

٦- Cultural differences should be observed in the turn –

taking system ( e.g. silence may have different
interpretations ).

EXERCISES:

١. How can a speaker signal that his current turn is coming to an

end?
٢. How does a hearer signal that he has something to say?
٣. Distinguish two causes of overlap and explain how each is
usually resolved.
٤. What is a TRP? What are the options available for speakers
there?
٥. What is meant by local management system?
٦. Record a conversation, transcribe it and find an example of a
TRP, a pause, a gap, overlap, interruption, and current speaker
selecting next.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٨١

Unit ٩ ADJACENCY PAIRS & SEQUENCE

STRUCTURE

Objectives:
By the end of this unit, students should be able to:
١- Define adjacency pairs and their role in conversation.
٢- Tell the conditions on the use of adjacency pairs.
٣- Tell why insertion sequences are used.
٤- Identify pre-sequences in adjacency pairs.
٥- Describe preference organization.
٦- Explain how the opening and closing sections of a
conversation are related to culture.
٧- Describe the pattern of organization common to most
informal phone calls.

Another source of conversational organization is the use of

adjacency pairs, i.e. pairs of utterances consisting of an initiating
utterance followed by an appropriate response, like question-
answer, greeting-greeting, offer-acceptance, and apology-
minimization.
I. What’s the time?
R. Two o’clock.
Adjacency pairs are closely related to the turn-taking system
as they are techniques for selecting a next speaker, especially
when an address term is included to specify who should be
speaking next. There are certain conditions on the use of
٨٢ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

adjacency pairs. These conditions include a) that they should be

adjacent, one coming after the other; b) they should be produced
by different speakers; c) they should come in the same order as a
first part and a second part; d) the first part requires a particular
second part, e.g. greeting-greeting, invitation-acceptance, etc.
Having produced a first part of some pair, current speaker must
stop speaking, and next speaker must produce at that point a
second part to the same pair. An adjacency pair, thus, constitutes
a fundamental unit of conversational organization. It plays an
essential role in initiating, maintaining and closing conversations
as in greetings, leave-taking, and topic-changing.
Because conversational discourse varies so much in length
and complexity, analysis generally by breaking an interaction into
the smallest possible units, then examining the way these units are
used in sequences. The units have been called “exchanges” and in
their minimal form consist simply of an initiating utterance
followed by a response. Three part exchanges are also important,
where the response is followed by an element of feedback. Such
reactions are especially found in teaching situations:
I. Where were the arrows kept?
R. In a special kind of box.
F. Yes, that’s right, in a box.
This teacher-feedback sequence would be inappropriate in
many everyday situations.
However, strict adjacency does not apply all the time. There
are frequently insertion sequences like the following example in
which one question-answer pair is embedded or inserted within
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٨٣

another, where Q١ is the first question, and A١ its answer, and so

on.
A. Can I have ١٠٠ grams of ground pepper, please?
┐ Q١
B. Black or white? Q٢ ┐insertion │
C. White. A٢ ┘sequence │
A. OK. ┘ A١

C. Can I go to the movies? ┐

D. Have you finished your homework? ┐insertion │
E. Not yet. ┘sequence │
C. No, then. ┘
As can be seen, insertion sequences are usually restricted in
content to necessary clarification and specification. However,
theoretically, numerous levels of embedding could result in a
question whose answer is many turns ahead as in (Q١(Q٢(Q٣(Q٤-
A٤)A٣)A٢)A١). Adjacency is, thus, suspended and replaced by
“conditional relevance”, meaning that once a first part of a pair
has been produced, a second part is immediately relevant and
strongly expected, and can be delayed only until more urgent
business has been taken care of.
Another related concept is that of preference organization.
Some adjacency pairs take more than one possible second part
like offer - acceptance / rejection, and request - acceptance /
rejection. It can be noticed that not all the potential second parts
to a first part of an adjacency pair are of equal standing; one
٨٤ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

response is preferred and the other “dispreferred”. In the above

mentioned exchanges, acceptance is usually preferred to rejection.
See this example of a preferred second part.
A. Why don’t you come and see me some time?
B. I’d like to.
However, when a speaker is about to produce a dispreferred
second part of an adjacency pair, this is usually preceded by a)
some delay or silence; b) some preface like the particle “well”; c)
some account of why the preferred second part cannot be
performed as in the following examples.
C. Um I was wondering if there’s any chance of
seeing you tomorrow morning or after the
meeting?
(١,٠)
D. Um (.) I doubt it. The reason is I’m seeing the
manager before the meeting and have to go
immediately after it to a lunch appointment.
A. Why don’t you come up and visit me tonight?
B. Well, [preface] that’s very sweet of you
[appreciation], but I don’t think [mitigation] I can
make it tonight [refusal]. I’ve called the
electrician to come and fix the washing
machine and am expecting him anytime
[account explaining why do the dispreferred act].
This preference organization also applies to statement-
agreement / disagreement. Other examples of first part – second
part (preferred / dispreferred) include Request – Acceptance /
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٨٥

Refusal; Offer – Acceptance / Refusal; Question – Expected

answer / Unexpected answer / Non-answer; Invitation –
Acceptance / Rejection; and Blame – Denial / Admission.
Another type of conversational sequence is usually called a
pre-sequence as it occurs before a sequence to check whether the
conditions required for its success obtain. Examples of pre-
sequences are pre-invitations, pre-requests and pre-
announcements. See how in the following examples pre-
sequences help avoid a dispreferred response to the main
sequence (i.e. the invitation, the request, and the announcement).
Pre-invitation (preferred)
A. What are you doing?
B. Nothing. Why?
A. Would you like to come to the cafeteria for a
drink?
B. Oh, I’d love to.
Pre-invitation (dispreferred)
A. What are you doing this afternoon?
B. Well, we’re going out. Why?
A. Oh, I was just going to say come over here and
let’s all have a drink, but maybe some other
time.
Pre-request:
A. Do you have chocolate ice-cream?
B. Uhumm.
٨٦ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

A. Can I have a chocolate cone with whipped

cream?
B. Sure. (Leaves to get.)
Pre-announcement:
A. Guess what?
B. What?
A. Dr. Dallie is leaving on a sabbatical next year.
B. But he hasn’t really been six years around
here, has he?
Pre-announcement:
A. I forgot to tell you the best thing that happened
to me today.
B. Super! What is it?
A. I got a B+ on my math test.
B. Oh, that’s great! I’m so happy for you.
In all these pre-sequences, ١) A produces a first part checking
whether a pre-condition obtains (that A has the time and is
interested, and ٢) B answers indicating whether the precondition
holds and requests A to proceed to the sequence proper. In ٣) A
performs the action conditional on the go ahead in #٢, and in ٤) B
responds to the action in #٣. Thus, pre-sequences prefigure an
upcoming action to invite collaboration in the action or the
avoidance of it before it is performed if it is bound to be rejected,
thus avoiding a dispreferred second part.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٨٧

OPENINGS & CLOSINGS

Another type of sequence is that of the opening and closing
sections of a conversational interaction. Openings usually signal
and establish for the participants the kind of activity about to take
place. They orient them to the nature of the interaction as in the
following openings: “Can I help you?” in service encounters,
and “Can I speak to Mr. Donald please?” in business phone
calls. Similarly, casual conversations have recognizable
beginnings (greetings) followed by exchanges that establish
and/or confirm social relations. These are usually formulaic and
phatic utterances that vary from culture to culture. For example,
the Chinese would open a conversation by inquiring where the
person is going, and whether he/ she has eaten. In Britain, “How
do you do?” is enough. As for the Polish, they usual make
health inquiries, and statements of pleasure at meeting each other,
commenting on the elapsed time since their last encounter.
Americans, in contrast, usually use short opening greetings. As
for Arabs, they use lengthy openings asking about the health of
family members, probably never met before. Due to such cultural
differences, openings should be made cautiously because if they
are abrupt, we may be thought rude or angry; and if they are
extended, then we may be thought of as long-winded, boring or
self-centered, demanding of undue attention. For this reason,
openings must be for appropriate length, bearing in mind such
cultural differences in cross-cultural interaction.
In analyzing telephone conversations, linguists have
discovered a certain pattern of organization common to most
informal phone calls. They all start with an opening section and
end with a closing section, with each section following systematic
٨٨ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

organization. The opening section usually consists of a number of

adjacency pairs including summons-answer, identification
sequence, greeting sequence, how-are-you sequence, before the
first topic is introduced, which may or may not be the reason for
the call. The ringing of the phone represents a summons, and the
answer to this summons may be a simple “hello” or station
identification (e.g. “Cairo Bank” or “Dr Hafez’s clinic”)
marking the call as a business phone call. In informal phone calls,
an identification sequence follows, where both parties may
identify each other, with the caller or answerer saying “hi”
inviting a reciprocal identification.; e.g. “Hi mom, it’s me.” or
A. Hi
B. Hi Susan.
Otherwise, the names of caller and answerer are given.
A. Dr Hafez?
B. Yes speaking.
A. This is Sally.
This is usually followed by an exchange of greetings and
“how-are-you” sequences, after which parties usually proceed to
topical conversation.
As for Closings, these have a specific structure. When parties
to a conversation have finished what they wanted to say, they do
not just say “good bye” and leave; rather, they signal the close of
the conversation, which has to be cooperatively accomplished to
avoid being considered too hasty or over slow. Closings usually
consist of future arrangements, pre-closing items and the closing
sequence. Once either party has reached this stage of wanting to
close the conversation, he or she uses the discourse marker
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٨٩

“anyway” in hinting at his or her wish to close the conversation.

Speakers may start this sequence by hinting at their obligation to
end the conversation and attend to other business, by saying
something like “Sorry but I really have to go now”, “Well I
must go back to work”, or “I mustn’t keep you”. Then, future
arrangements are made or recycled as in “So I’ll see you
tomorrow”. These are usually followed by pre-closing items,
coordinating the closing and providing a slot for deferred topics
that the other speaker might like to mention before closing the
conversation. These usually consist of an exchange of “Okay”
and/or “All right”. They are potential initiations of closings,
inviting collaboration in closing. If either party has something
more to say, this is the last opportunity to do so: “Oh, just a
minute” / “Oops, I forgot to …” after which, there is another
round of “Okay”s or other pre-closing items. Once pre-closings
have been exchanged, it is very difficult to interrupt them. These
are, then, followed by closing greetings “bye – bye”.

Main ideas:
١- Adjacency pairs are pairs of utterances consisting of an
initiating utterance followed by an appropriate response.
(e.g. question – answer )
٢- There are certain conditions on the use of adjacency pairs.
( e.g. the first part requires a particular second part.)
٣- They play an essential role in initiating, maintaining and
closing conversation.
٤- There may be many possible sequences for adjacency
pairs. ( consider preference organization ).
٩٠ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

٥- A pre-sequence may come before a sequence to check

whether the conditions required for its success are
adequate.
٦- Openings of a conversation usually signal and establish
the kind of activity about to take place.
٧- Telephone conversation have a pattern of organization
common to most informal calls.
٨- There are definable structures for closing a conversation.

EXERCISES:
Answer the following questions:
١- What are adjacency pairs ?
٢- What are the conditions on their use ?
٣- Give examples of the different sequence patterns of
adjacency pairs.
٤- How can the speaker reject an offer ?
٥- What are pre-sequences?
Give examples.
٦- How do openings and closings of conversations reflect the
culture of the participants?
٧- Analyze short conversations reflecting the different
sequences of adjacency pairs from the plays or novels you
have studied.
٨- Study the following conversations and identify the
adjacency pairs and their functions.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٩١

(١)
A : What would you like?
B : A roll, I think.
A : Chicken ?
B : Yes, please
(٢)
A : Would you like something to drink?
B : Yes, hot chocolate. what about you?
A : Nothing. thanks.
(٣)
A : What’s wrong?
B : I can’t see the tree from here!
A : I think you should see an optician.
(٤)
A : Could I borrow these tow books?
B : Have you got your card?
A : Yes, here you are.
٩٢ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٩٣

Unit ١٠ DISCOURSE MARKERS

Objectives:
By the end of this unit, students should be able to:
١- Define discourse markers.
٢- Describe the functions of discourse markers
٣- Explain the functions of:
a- OK.
b- Well.
c- I think.
d- You know.

One verbal device that has gained considerable attention

recently is the discourse marker, i.e. a device whose main
function is to link, and signal a transition across structural
boundaries. Examples of discourse markers are such elements as
“OK”, “well”, “oh”, “you know”, “I mean”, “of course”, “and”,
“but”, etc. The term “discourse markers” was defined by Schiffrin
(١٩٨٨, ٣١) as “sequentially dependent elements which bracket
units of talk”. In other words, discourse markers highlight the
boundaries of speech acts and link them. These verbal devices
may be lexical (e.g. well, but), or clausal (e.g. I mean, you see).
They could be adverbs (e.g. now, then), conjunctions (e.g. and,
but, so) or intensifiers (e.g. of course). What they have in
common is the discourse role as distinct from interjections like
“oops” or “Gosh” in that they are sequentially dependent. In
other words, they do not communicate a full message on their
٩٤ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

own. Markers can be used to signal boundaries in discourse

indicating the completion of an on-going discourse topic or phrase
(okay, good) or the opening of a next discourse topic or phrase
(well now, by the way). They are discourse deictic expressions
in that they indicate a relationship between the utterance that they
form part of, and previous discourse.
Additionally, markers only signal a structural, logical or
pragmatic relationship between discourse units. They do not
create the relationship. The speaker selects a marker to signal the
type of relationship he or she intends to convey between units of
discourse (e.g. X and Y, X but Y, X so Y). The actual
relationship, though, already exists. It follows, therefore, that
markers are marginal elements that do not interfere with the
structure or meaning of the utterance they come in. This allows
them to be deleted without distorting the grammar or content
meaning of a stretch of discourse. What discourse markers do is
specify how the surrounding parts relate to one another. In this
way, they contribute to conversational coherence as both speaker
and hearer build toward logically related discourse.
Discourse markers have a number of functions: as
connectives connecting the parts of the discourse, as politeness
markers strengthening or softening the perlocutionary effect of the
utterance, and as fillers filling in silence. First, they can be
considered connectives which maintain the continuity of
discourse and signal the sequential relationship between the
current basic message and the previous discourse e.g. “and”,
“so”, “but”, “anyway”, “now”, “the main point is”, “I have
something to add”, “what I really mean is”. They can also help
speakers structure their presentation of topic like “generally”, “to
begin with”, “ordinarily”, “obviously”, etc. Additionally,
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٩٥

discourse markers can reinforce the discourse and emphasize

what is previously said (e.g. “really”, “indeed”, “obviously”, “as
a matter of fact”, “in other words”). On the other hand,
discourse markers can also function as hedges that soften the
discourse softening the speaker’s attitude towards the hearer or
the conversational situation as in “I think”, “you know”, “you
see”, “I mean”, “sort of”, “kind of”, “a little bit”, “just”, “well”,
“but er”. Finally, they can also be used as fillers helping the
speaker to fill in the silence while planning what to say next or
thinking of an appropriate word or expression. Examples of these
include “well”, “you see”, “I think”, “you know”, “I mean”.
In addition, discourse markers play a role as boundary
markers signalling sequences such as side sequences and closings.
They could function as misplacement markers as “by the way”
for something occurring out of sequence; “well” marking shifts in
topic; and “now” and “right” identifying frames as boundary
markers especially in the classroom. The discourse marker
“anyway” is often used in introducing the closing section in
conversations and phone calls. It marks a shift to a section of
more general interest. Consider the following example taken
from the closing of a phone call.
A. Anyway, you can call me anytime if you have any
questions.
B. Ok
A. Ok, good to talk to you.
B. Same here. Thanks for calling.
A. Ok. Bye
B. Bye
٩٦ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

Discourse markers tend to have a very high frequency of

occurrence in spoken languages. The most frequent of these are
“OK”, “well”, “I think”, and “you know”.
• “OK”:
“OK” is used in goal-directed decision-making sequences. It
appears to have two major functions. The first one is to signify
acceptance or confirmation of another participant’s proposal.
When used in responses to requests for action, it can indicate S’s
approval and intention to comply with the request of the other
party. The second function is to mark a transition at significant
structural boundaries at three different points: a) at the beginning
of the discourse, marking “topical” organization; b) after a
digression (e.g. a joking sequence) and back to a new decision-
making sequence, and c) at juncture points between each decision
taken. It is common to find “OK” marking the beginning of the
entire discourse, the transition from one sequence to the next.
This function is common to both service encounters and
classroom interaction. “OK” is, thus, used as a cohesive device at
transitional junctures.
• “Well”:
“Well” occurs typically in a number of structures. First, it
occurs in question-answer sequences, a) introducing a response
that does not fit the questioner’s expectations (i.e. dispreferred
response) either because the speaker is not sure of the answer, the
answer is too complicated, or the question presupposes an
inaccurate assumption, and b) marking introductory phrases
before the main point of the answer. Second, “well” precedes
requests when the relevance of the request is not very clear, a)
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٩٧

when the request is repeated, showing that the previous response

was not satisfactory, b) when the respondent is reluctant to
comply with the request, and c) when the request asks for further
clarification. In short, “well” helps relate apparently unrelated
elements to prior discourse, or introduce a dispreferred response.
• “I think”:
The functions of “I think” depend on the intonation
accompanying it. When produced at the beginning of the
utterance with fall-rise intonation, it usually indicates the
speaker’s uncertainty of the truth of what he or she is saying.
When produced with level intonation at the beginning of the
utterance, it has a boosting effect, emphasizing speaker
confidence. When occurring at the end of the utterance with
falling intonation, however, it could indicate uncertainty or soften
a directive speech act.
• “you know”:
Similarly, “you know” could show either speaker certainty or
uncertainty. It may stress speaker certainty expressing confidence
that the hearer already knows what the speaker is saying or is
familiar with it, or show speaker’s confidence in the truth of the
information he or she is presenting. On the other hand, “you
know” can also stress speaker’s uncertainty eliciting reassurance
from the hearer when presenting private information, or as an
excuse for linguistic imprecision.
One concludes from the contexts given for each marker that
markers do contribute to the understanding of interactional
coherence in conversation. Markers have been used for turn-
taking purposes, for politeness purposes and for cooperation.
٩٨ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

They have also been used for marking textual boundaries, for
regulating adjacency pairs and sequences, and for negotiating the
degree of certainty about the truth of speakers’ propositions.
They are an essential organizational tool in conversational
interaction.
Main ideas:

Discourse markers are sequentially dependent elements which

bracket units of talk. ( They do not communicate full messages on
their own ).
١- They may be:
a- lexical ( e.g. well )
b- clausal ( e.g. I mean )
c- adverbs ( e.g. now )
d- conjunctions ( e.g. so )
e- intensifiers ( e.g. of course )
٢- Discourse markers have many functions. ( e.g. as
politeness markers )
٣- “ OK “ as a marker, has two major functions:
a- to signify accptance or confirmation .
b- to make a transition ( as a cohesive device )
٤- “ Well “ occurs in these structures:
a- question – answer – sequences
b- preceding requests ( e.g. when there is a problem with
compliance )
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ٩٩

٥- “ I think “ may be used to express uncertainty, confidence,

etc. The intonation accompanying it indicates the
function.
٦- “ you know “ could show the speaker’s certainty or
uncertainty.

EXERCISES:
Answer the following question:
١- What are discourse markers?
٢- What are their functions. Give examples
٣- What are the functions of “ OK ‘ in a goal – oriented. Decision-
making sequence?
٤- Complete the following:
a- “ Well “ is used to ……… .
b- The functions of “ I think “ depend on ……… .
c- “ You know “ could mean either …….. or …….. .
٥- Study this dialog and identify the discourse markers and their
functions :
A : Why don’t we go and see that new film at the Metro ?
B : Well, actually I saw it last week. It’s great, but I don’t
really want to see it again.
A ; Well, let’s go to the theatre then.
B : yes, I’d love to.
A : OK, if I get tickets, I’ll see you at seven o’clock.
١٠٠ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ١٠١

Unit ١١ CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Objectives:
By the end of this unit, students should be able to:
١- Define the objectives of critical discourse analysis ( CDA )
٢- Give examples of the areas of CDA.
٣- Explain the use of certain language choices when the
participants do not have the same power.
٤- Give a short account of:
a- mystification.
b- political CDA.
c- racist discourse.
d- gender inequality & language choices.
e- inequalities in institutional interaction.
f- news interviews.

Discourse has studied continuous stretches of language

(beyond the sentence level) constituting a speech event such as a
conversation, a sermon, a joke, or an interview. Such events have
usually been analyzed in terms of such contextual factors as
Speaker, Hearer, subject matter, sequentiality, etc. Discourse
Analysis came as a revolution against traditional and Chomskyan
linguistics, both of which focussed on idealized competence rather
than degenerate performance, and analyzed grammatically well-
formed sentences produced by an ideal speaker-hearer and isolated
from context. Trying to include context in their study of language,
١٠٢ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

discourse analysts such as Austin and Searle studied utterances

and conversational norms. In categorizing such utterances as
"Foul" and "I now pronounce you man/ husband and wife," they
hinted at the authority or power of the speaker.
Critical Discourse Analysis (or CDA) emerged to reveal
hidden power relations and ideological processes at work in
spoken and written discourse alike, and to explore the relationship
between discourse events and socio-political / cultural factors. Its
role is to uncover "linguistic manipulation" i.e. the use of language
to mask social oppression, as manifest in obscuring information,
deception, distortion and acquiring greater or lesser power
conversationally. Going beyond the limited scope of semantics
that focuses on the sense relations of words and sentences, CDA
sees any writing as a selection and an interpretation, which is
primarily intertextual because it is interpreted against a
background of other statements. In this way, it reflects the
interplay of such forces as power and control, stance and ideology,
and power abuse and manipulation. It is the task of CDA to see
how such language use confirms, reproduces, or challenges
existing (albeit hidden) power relations of individuals and
institutions alike.
Linguistic preambles to CDA:
CDA derives concepts from such varied areas as rhetoric,
ethnography, content analysis, pragmatics, sociolinguistics,
discourse analysis and conversation analysis. Most of these
disciplines make sporadic comments on the interplay of language
and power. Three works will be cited here that make reference to
language as a site of power negotiation. The first one is the study
of rules of address which can be a locale for social struggle:
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ١٠٣

'What's your name, boy?' the policeman asked....

'Dr. Poussaint. I'm a physician...'
'What's your first name, boy?...'
'Alvin.'
In this example, the black doctor is repeatedly humiliated by
the policeman who denies his social status/ power in addressing
him as 'boy', not acknowledging his title + last name, and insisting
on a first name as well as insisting on calling him 'boy' even after
he is told he is a doctor.
The second example of analysis of the power-discourse
interplay prior to CDA is the study of pronouns of address (T/V)
like "tu" and "vous" or ‫ ﺣ ﻀﺮﺗﻚ أو ﺳ ﻴﺎدﺗﻚ‬along the power-solidarity
scales. Power, here, is defined in terms of such factors as wealth,
age, sex, physical strength, and institutional role (in state, army or
the family). Linguists argue that unequal strangers display power
inequality. They also discuss the powerful speakers' right to
initiate reciprocal T terms (you or ‫ )اﻧﺖ‬with strangers.
A third work that touches upon the power-discourse
relationship prior to the rise of CDA is Brown and Levinson's
work on politeness. They rank politeness strategies on a scale
from bald-on-record, through positive politeness, negative
politeness, to off-record strategies. The choice of which type of
strategy to employ is based on speakers' evaluation of three
factors: ١) speaker-hearer relative status/ power, ٢) their social
distance, and ٣) the weightiness of the imposition in a particular
culture.
This emerging awareness of power and its role in making
linguistic choices as well as the effect of linguistic choices on
١٠٤ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

speaker-hearer power has prepared the way for CDA. The tools
analyzed in these works are drawn upon later in studies of CDA.
Critical Linguistics:
Fowler et al. (١٩٧٩) construct a framework of linguistic ploys
inherent in the veiling of involvement and responsibility of certain
parties for certain actions. One such ploy is modality as evident in
the use of personal pronouns, among other things. The pronoun
"we" in "We made this decision for the good of the nation"
uttered by a party leader, is ambiguous as to whether "we" is used
inclusively (referring to speaker as well as other members of the
party) or exclusively (i.e. to speaker only, as a representative of an
institution.) Another ploy of mystification is the use of
nominalization and passivization to omit agent and tense, thus
obscuring agency and responsibility, and topicalizing another
noun phrase in subject position. Compare the following three
alternatives:
X negotiated with Y, which Z criticized.
The negotiations were criticized by Z.
There was much criticism of the negotiations.
Both of the last two sentences obscure the agent (i.e. the doer),
and do not allow the reader to determine who criticized whom, or
who had negotiated with whom. A third ploy of mystification is
the use of "lexicalization" to include both "relexicalization", i.e.
inventing new expressions to work out new (or problematized)
concepts, and "overlexicalization", namely the provision of a large
number of synonyms or near-synonyms to cover an area of intense
preoccupation and manage to repeat a concept in different words.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ١٠٥

(Mis)representation of the powerless:

One of the objectives of CDA has been to expose
misrepresentation of and discrimination against the powerless, be
they women, minorities, immigrants, people of the Third World,
political enemies, etc. As such powerless groups rarely have
access to power positions, they are often objects of others' actions.
Such powerless groups or individuals are usually misrepresented,
if not excluded altogether from the different domains of discourse.
This is reflected in their being objects rather than subjects of
action verbs showing how they are often objects of others'
definition. Coupled with this is the use of opinionated language,
especially by the socially superior speakers who can exert
influence through their ability to win attention and support, yet
evade and conceal. Such misrepresentation has been studied in
such domains of discourse as the media, politics, racism, and
gender discourse, as will be seen below.
As any representation is mediated, it is thus moulded by the
value systems that are embedded in the language. In the analysis
of the US media coverage of politics, it was found that political
neutrality in news reports is impossible, and that by definition all
political news have some bias. Many of these studies mark how
political speech is reported: with unnamed sources, questionable
quotes, and attitudinal verbs reporting speech (compare the
impulsive "blast", the suspicious "brag" or "claim", and the
detached "report"). Linguists give an example of how the news of
a black robber killed by the police can be skewed according to the
reporter's stance so as to portray the robber either as a victim of
the social system that kept him poor, led him to rob, and invited
the racial police to shoot him, or alternatively blame the robber's
١٠٦ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

poverty on his laziness and failure to go to school or find himself a

decent job, preferring to get easy money criminally. News reports
embedding such assumptions are not a reflection of objective
reality but rather a re-presentation shaped by political, economic
and cultural forces. Many analysts mark the use of biased lexical
choices such as euphemisms for negative actions by dominant
parties, agency deletion through passivization or nominalization,
and generic stereotypes.
Another major trend in political CDA is the one commonly
called "Orwellian linguistics" which focuses on biases inherent in
all political language. Orwell focuses on the use of euphemisms
such as the term "pacification program" used to refer to
bombarding villages, where the dictionary definition of "pacify" is
to "calm, subdue, or reduce to a state of peace" rather than to "kill
civilians." He elaborates on the use of euphemisms in political
language in order to name things without calling up mental images
of them. Other linguists focus on the uses of the pronouns
"I"/"we" to distance the speaker and shift responsibility for
certain actions.
Most CDA has focused on racism in representing ethnic
minorities, like immigrants and refugees e.g. blacks, Latinos,
Asians and native Americans in the US, and Turks in Germany.
Prejudice is expressed through the use of derogative terms,
mention of color, polarization through contrast, lexical terms of
difference, and demonstratives of distance. Another feature of
racist discourse is the reproduction of stereotyping and
overgeneralizations against ethnic minorities; these include
intellectual inferiority, crime, violence, and involvement with
drugs in the case of Blacks (added to prior oppression, i.e. slavery
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ١٠٧

and segregation). Stereotyping is common in different types of

discursive practice, describing Asians as hardworking and thus a
threat, Latinos as lazy, and Arabs as violent (involved in
fundamentalist terrorism), sensuous (with reference to belly
dancing and the harem), exotic (with genies and enslaved
maidens), and undeservedly wealthy. In addition to stereotyping,
one should notice the contradictions between apparently
egalitarian lexis referring to native Americans as "co-citizens" on
the one hand, and the exclusive pronouns (using the third person
"them" vs. the exclusive "us" referring to the dominant group).
Add to this the use of overt racist slurs like "nigger" as a form of
intimidation to repress black opposition to racial injustice. Such
slurs wound and hit those already marginalized so that they would
feel even more powerless due to lack of a similar weapon.
Another area of power inequality realized through language is
that of language about women and language of women, usually
labelled gender inequality, including a number of assumptions
that arise due to this inequality, yet reinforce it. One of these is
the use of male-oriented terms like "chairman", "salesman" and
even "layman", to refer to men and women alike, demonstrating an
assumption that all people are male unless proven female.
Another is the assumption that woman is defined through her
relationship to man, as illustrated in "Mrs. John Scott" or the
phrase "lords and their ladies, and soldiers and their women" so
that a woman's status (lady / woman) is defined by that of her
husband. Still another assumption is that after marriage a man
remains a man, while a woman becomes a wife; they are
pronounced "man and wife" at the ceremony; and if unmarried, the
١٠٨ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

man remains a "bachelor", a neutral term, while a woman becomes

a "spinster" -- a term with negative connotations.
Another arena of gender inequality is that of the language
spoken by and to women. Analyzing the authority of men's style -
- with more interruptions, fewer questions, and more assertions--,
Tannen (١٩٩٠) explains male (conversational) dominance and
female oppression in terms of difference in conversational style.
Whereas men are more detached and power oriented, women are
more oriented to involvement and solidarity. While Tannen
pleads for understanding style differences, most feminists call for
reform of sexist language and of women's discourse to resist such
power inequalities.
Since the ١٩٧٠'s, discourse analysts have investigated
inequalities in institutional interaction in different domains and
pointed out some interesting similarities. Whether it is doctor-
patient, teacher-student, interviewer-interviewee, examiner-
witness, or any kind of professional-client interaction, certain
patterns of dominance and control have been observed. One of
these is the professional's right to control the participation of the
client through questions that specify what kind of contribution is
appropriate. Another is the right to change or even ignore the
client's topic without proper prefacing. Still another right is that of
interrupting the client if the professionals find what is forthcoming
inconvenient to their conversational needs. They also have the
right to evaluate the participation of the client, by reformulating
the topics or summarizing the contributions of others. The
dominated client can only respond to the questions without
necessarily being aware of the purposes behind the professional's
hidden agenda.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ١٠٩

For example, in the courtroom, as a witness is asked

questions, such questions are compelling and require an answer.
A witness's response is acceptable only if it is responsive to the
question. The examiner, on the other hand, holds the right to
demand responsive answers from the witness, to employ
unwarranted, unprefaced topic shifts (aiming to catch the witness
in a lie), and to manipulate the question form by producing leading
or non-leading questions. Witnesses are thus manipulated into
compliance, both linguistically and legally.
Another site of power conflict that has been subjected to
investigation is news interviews, observing subtle bias in favor of
employers in interviews with employees, such bias residing in
who is interviewed how, in which location, and with what camera
angle. Studies examine question design and conclude that it is
never neutral with respect to the issue handled or to the
interviewee's stance towards it. Questions set agendas for
responses, establishing topical domains, embodying certain
presuppositions, and preferring particular responses over others,
especially after leading questions of the type "Isn't X?", "That
means Y, doesn't it?", "Do you seriously believe that Z?",
and "Don't you think ...?" Questions can also sanction the
interviewee by formulating him/ her as evasive.
Though only two decades old, the emerging field of CDA has
mushroomed very fast with a diversity of topics and genres
covered. The main objective has been the same throughout,
namely, showing how discourse reflects power and simultaneously
asserts it. Language is thus viewed as not merely a medium of
expressing power relations, but also an instrument reinforcing
extant asymmetries. The goals of such analysis -- namely the
١١٠ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

defamiliarization of power-laden discursive practices, and

demystification of (c)overt power inequalities -- have been
achieved with varying degrees of success in different fields. Still
more CDA needs to be practised and extended to still other areas
for the purposes of consciousness raising and resistance of
inequalities.

Main ideas:
١- Critical discourse analysis emerged to reveal hidden power
relations and ideological processes at work in spoken and
written discourse.
٢- It derives concepts from a wide variety of areas e.g.
rhetoric and content analysis.
٣- Three studies had been conducted before CDA:
a- the study of the rules of adddress.
b- the study of the pronouns of adddress.
c- the study of politeness strategies.
٤- Some of the studies in CDA are:
a. plays of mystification
b. misrepresentation and discrimination against the
powerless.
c. biases in all political language (Orwellian Linguistics).
d. racism.
e. gender inequality.
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ١١١

f. inequalities in institutional interaction

g. news interviews.
٥. The ultimate aim of CDA is to raise consciousness of such
inequalities and resist them

Exercises:
١. What is the aim of CDA?
٢. What are the sources of CDA?
٣. Give examples to show language as a site of power
negotiation.
٤. How could responsibility for certain actions be veiled?
٥. What is meant by “Orwellian Linguistics”?
٦. How is prejudice against ethnic minorities expressed?
٧. How is gender inequality expressed?
٨. Explain how news interviews represent power conflict.
٩. Write short notes on:
Courtroom language
Prejudice in the media
١١٢ Introduction to: Discourse Analysis

REFERENCES

Austin, J.L. ١٩٦٢. How to Do Things With Words. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson ١٩٨٧. Politeness: Some
universals in language usage. Cambridge: C.U.P.
Coulthard, M. ١٩٧٧. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis.
London: Longman.
Crystal, D. ١٩٩٧. Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. ٤th
edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Crystal, D. ١٩٨٧. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of
Language. Cambridge: CUP.
De Beaugrande, R. & W. Dressler. ١٩٨١. Introduction to
Text Linguistics. London: Longman.
Grice, H. ١٩٧٥. "Logic and conversation" in Cole, P. & J.L.
Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics: ٣. Speech Acts.
New York: Academic Press, ٤١-٥٨
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan ١٩٧٦ . Cohesion in English.
London: Longman.
Hatch, E.
Leech, G. ١٩٨٣ . Principles of Pragmatics. London:
Longman.
Levinson, Stephen C. ١٩٨٣ . Pragmatics. Cambridge:
C.U.P.
McCarthy, M. & R. Carter ١٩٩٤ Language as Discourse:
Introduction to: Discourse Analysis ١١٣

Perspectives for language teaching. London: Longman.

Peccei, J. S. ١٩٩٩. Pragmatics. London: Routledge.
Sacks, H., E. Schegloff & G. Jefferson ١٩٧٤. A simplest
systematics for the organization of turn-taking for
conversation. Language ٥٠, ٦٩٦-٧٣٥.
Schiffrin, D. ١٩٨٧. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: C.U.P.
Searle, J. R. ١٩٦٩ . Speech Acts. London: C.U.P.
Sinclair, J M. & R. M. Coulthard ١٩٧٥ . Towards an
Analysis of Discourse: The English used by teachers and
pupils. London: O.U.P.
Stubbs, M. ١٩٨٣ Discourse Analysis: the sociolinguistic
analysis of natural language. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Thomas, J. ١٩٩٥. Meaning in Interaction: An introduction to
pragmatics. London: Longman.