Applied Linguistics M1

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Ikenna Kamalu & Ayo Osisanwo

Introduction

Discourse analysis (DA) is a broad field of study that draws some of its theories and methods of analysis from disciplines such as linguistics, sociology, philosophy and psychology. More importantly, discourse analysis has provided models and methods of engaging issues  that emanate from disciplines such as education, cultural studies, communication and so on. The vast nature of discourse analysis makes it impossible for us to discuss all that the reader needs to know about it in an introductory work of this nature. However, the chief aim of this chapter is to introduce the reader to some of the basic terms and concepts involved in discourse analysis. The reader is also introduced to some of the approaches to linguistic study of discourse.

What is Discourse Analysis?

The term ‘discourse analysis’ was first used by the sentence linguist, Zellig Harris in his 1952 article entitled ‘Discourse Analysis’. According to him, discourse analysis is a method for the analysis of connected  speech  or writing, for continuing descriptive linguistics beyond the limit of a simple sentence at a time (Harris 1952). Meanwhile, scholars have attested to the difficulty in coming up with a comprehensive and acceptable definition for discourse analysis. However, a way to simplify the attempt  to  define discourse analysis is to say that discourse analysis is ‘the analysis  of discourse’. The next question, therefore, would be ‘what is discourse?’

Discourse can simply be seen as language in use (Brown & Yule 1983; Cook 1989). It therefore follows that discourse analysis is the analysis of language in use. By ‘language in use’, we mean  the  set  of norms, preferences and expectations which relate language to context. Discourse analysis can also be seen as the organization of language above the sentence level. The term ‘text’ is, sometimes, used in place of ‘discourse’. The concern of discourse analysis is not  restricted  to  the study of formal properties of language; it also takes into consideration what language is used for in social and cultural contexts. Discourse analysis, therefore, studies the relationship between language (written, spoken – conversation, institutionalized forms of talk) and the contexts in which it is used. What matters is that the text is felt to be coherent. Guy Cook (1989:6-7) describes discourse as language in use  or language used to communicate something felt to be coherent which may, or may not correspond to a correct sentence or series of correct sentences. Discourse analysis, therefore, according to him, is the search for what gives discourse coherence. He posits that discourse does not have to be grammatically correct, can be anything from a grunt or simple expletive, through short conversations and scribbled notes, a novel or a lengthy legal case. What matters is not its conformity to rules, but the fact that it communicates and is recognized by its receivers as coherent. Similarly, Stubbs (1983:1) perceives discourse analysis as ‘a conglomeration of attempts to study the organization of language and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational exchanges or written text.’ Again, we affirm that what matters in the study of discourse, whether as language in use or as language beyond the clause, is that language is organized in a coherent manner such that it communicates  something to its receivers.

Discourse analysis evolved from works in different disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, anthropology, psychology and sociology. Some of the scholars and the works that either gave birth to, or helped in  the  development  of  discourse  analysis  include the following: J.L. Austin whose How to Do Things with Words (1962) introduced  the  popular  social  theory,  speech-act  theory.  Dell  Hymes (1964) provided a sociological perspective with the study of speech. John Searle (1969) developed and improved on the work of Austin. The linguistic philosopher, M.A.K. Halliday greatly influenced the linguistic properties of discourses (e.g. Halliday 1961), and in the 1970s he provided sufficient framework for the consideration  of  the  functional  approach  to  language (e.g. Halliday 1973). H.P. Grice (1975) and Halliday (1978) were also influential in the study of language as social action reflected  in  the formulation of conversational maxims  and  the  emergence  of  social semiotics. The work of Sinclair and Coulthard  (1975)  also  developed  a model for the description of teacher-pupil talk. The study grew to be a

major approach to discourse. Some  work  on  conversation  analysis  also aided the development of discourse analysis. Some of such works from the ethnomethodological tradition include the work of Gumperz  and  Hymes 1972. Some other works influential in the study of conversational norms, turn-taking, and other  aspects  of  spoken  interaction  include  Goffman (1976, 1979), and Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974). The brief review above shows that the approach to discourse is anything  but  uniform,  so below is an attempt to provide a more systematic insight into some of the approaches to discourse.

3.0    Approaches to Discourse

The term ‘discourse analysis’ has been employed by people in a variety of academic disciplines and departments to describe what they do, how they do it, or both. Barbara Johnstone (2002: 1) observes that while many of these people have training in general linguistics, some identify themselves primarily as linguists, yet others identify themselves primarily with fields of study as varied and disparate as anthropology, communication, cultural studies, psychology or education among others. This shows that, under the label discourse analysis, so many people do their own things in their own ways, relying on methods and approaches that may be peculiar or relevant to their disciplines or fields of study. However, the only thing all these endeavours seem to have in common is their interest in studying language and its effects. Consequently, Deborah Schiffrin (1994:5) recognizes discourse analysis as one of the vast, but also one of the least defined areas in linguistics. She points out that one of the reasons is that our understanding of discourse is based on scholarship from a number of academic disciplines that are actually very different from one another. Another is that discourse analysis draws not just from disciplines such as linguistics, anthropology, sociology and philosophy, from which models and methods for analyzing discourse first developed, but also the fact that such models and methods have been employed and extended in engaging problems that emanate from other academic domains as communication, social psychology, and artificial intelligence. Schiffrin in her Approaches to Discourse (1994) discusses and compares some of the different approaches to the linguistic analysis of discourse: speech act theory, interactional sociolinguistics, ethnography of communication, pragmatics, conversation analysis, and variation analysis. This part of the work, therefore, summarizes the approaches to linguistic analysis of discourse identified by Schiffrin. It aims at introducing the reader to some of the linguistic approaches to discourse that are available to the analyst. Thus, the reader is by this exercise (the synopsis presented below), encouraged to see Schiffrin (1994) and other related texts for more on these approaches.

Speech Act Theory

The Speech Act Theory was first formulated by the philosopher  John Austin (1962) and was later developed and presented more systematically by another philosopher John Searle (1969, 1975). The theory proceeds from the assumption that language is used to perform actions hence its main concern is on how meaning and action are related to language. John Austin and John Searle believe that language is not just used to describe the world, but to perform a range of other actions that can be indicated in the performance of the utterance itself. For example, ‘I promise to marry you’ and ‘I sentence you to death’ perform the functions of promising and sentencing respectively. However, an utterance may perform more than one act at a time as  in: ‘Can you  pass the salt?’  which can  be understood as both a question and a request. But one can hardly understand the utterance as a question to test the physical ability of the hearer but as a request to perform the action requested. This kind of utterance is known as an indirect speech act because its illocutionary force is an outcome of the relationship between two different speech acts. Schriffin notes that speech act approach to discourse focuses upon knowledge of underlying conditions for production and interpretation of acts through words. The context of the utterance helps the hearer in making sense of an indirect speech act by separating the multiple functions of utterances from one another. The literal meanings of words and the contexts in which they occur may interact in our knowledge of the conditions underlying the realization of acts and interpretation of acts. She further contends that although speech act theory was not originally designed as a means of analyzing discourse, some of its insights have been used by many scholars to help solve problems basic to discourse analysis. This includes problems of indirect speech act, multifunctionality and context dependence as in the last example above. Cook (1989) also acknowledges that speech act theory enables us to see how meaning has become more and more slippery. Indirection, according to him, is something which human beings exploit to their advantage. It enables them to avoid committing themselves and to retreat in front of danger; and this is one of the major reasons why people speak indirectly (40).

Interactional Sociolinguistic

The approach to discourse known as ‘interactional sociolinguistics’ is essentially derived from the works of the anthropologist John Gumperz and the sociologist Erving Goffman. The approach, according to Schiffrin, has the most diverse disciplinary origins …it is based in anthropology, sociology, and linguistics, and shares the concerns of all three fields with culture, society, and language. The contribution to interactional sociolinguistics made by John Gumperz provides an understanding of how people may share grammatical knowledge of a language, but differently

contextualize what is said  –  such  that  very  different  messages  are produced and understood. The contribution  made  by  Erving  Goffman,  on the other hand, provides a description of how language is situated  in particular circumstances  of  life,  and  how  it  reflects,  and  adds,  meaning and structure in those circumstances. Schiffrin identified the interaction between self and the other, and  context,  as  the  two  central  issues underlying the work of Gumperz and Goffman. Thus, while the work of Gumperz focuses on how interpretations of context are critical to the communication of information and  to  another’s  understanding  of  a speaker’s intention and/or discourse strategy, that of Goffman  focuses  on how the organization of social life (in institutions, interactions, and so on) provides contexts in which both  the  conduct  of  self  and  communication with another can be ‘made sense of’ (both by those co-present in  an interaction and by outside analysts).  Schiffrin  further  contends  that  the work of both scholars also provides a view of language  as  indexical  to  a social  world:  for  Gumperz,  language  is  an  index  to  the  background cultural understandings that provide hidden – but nevertheless critical - knowledge about how to make inferences about what is meant through an utterance;  for  Goffman,  language  is  one  of  a  number  of  symbolic resources that provide an index to the social identities  and  relationships being continually constructed during interaction.

Interactional sociolinguistics provides an approach to discourse that focuses upon situated meaning and scholars taking this approach combine the ideas of the anthropologist John Gumperz and the sociologist Erving Goffman. According to Schiffrin, what Gumperz contributes to this approach is a set of tools that provide a framework within which to analyze the  use of language during interpersonal communication. He views language as a socially and culturally constructed symbol system that both reflects and creates macro-level social meaning and micro-level interpersonal meanings. Goffman’s work also focuses upon situated knowledge, the self, and social context in a way that complements Gumperz’s focus on situated inference: Goffman provides a sociological framework for describing and understanding the form and meaning of the social and interpersonal contexts that provide presuppositions for the interpretation of meaning. In all, interactional sociolinguistics views discourse as a social interaction in which the emergent construction and negotiation of meaning is facilitated by the use of language. The work of Goffman forces structural attention to the contexts in which language is used: situations, occasions, encounters, participation frameworks, and so on, have forms and meanings that are partially created and/or sustained by language. Similarly, language is patterned in ways that reflect those contexts of use. As Schiffrin puts it, language and context co-constitute

one another: language contextualizes and is contextualized, such that language does not just function “in” contexts, language also forms and provides context. Social interaction is identified as an instance of context. Language, culture, and society are grounded in interaction: they stand in a reflexive relationship with the self, the other, and the self-other relationship, and it is out of these mutually constitutive relationships that discourse is created (Schiffrin, 1994).

The Ethnography of Communication

The Ethnography of Communication, also known  as  Ethnography  of Speaking, was developed by Dell Hymes in a series of papers written in the 1960s and 1970s (many of which are collected in his Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach [1974]). Hymes argues that Chomsky’s definition of competence is too narrow, and that an adequate approach  must  distinguish  and  investigate  four  aspects  of  competence. The four aspects include (i) systematic potential  (to  what  extent  is something not yet realized), (ii) appropriateness (to  what  extent  is something suitable and effective in some context),  (iii)  occurrence  (the extent to which something is done), and (iv) feasibility (the extent to which something is possible). In essence, therefore,  this  term  is  a  critical expansion of Noam Chomsky’s concept of competence which is  only concerned with the linguistic capabilities of the ideal speaker-hearer. Chomsky’s concept backgrounds the social function of language. Hymes’ Ethnography of Communication is concerned with the analysis of language use in its  socio-cultural  setting.  This  approach  is  based  on  the  premise that the meaning of an utterance can be understood only in relation to the ‘speech event’ or ‘communicative event,’ in which it is embedded (Hymes 1962). The character of such speech events (for example, a sermon) is culturally determined.

Ethnography of speaking relates to discourse analysis through the ethnographic approach where conversational inferences play a key role: participants link the content of an utterance and other verbal, vocal, and non-vocal cues  with  background  knowledge.  Hymes  argues  further  that any description of ‘ways of speaking’ will need to provide data along four interrelated dimensions which are: the linguistic resources available to the speaker; the rules of interpretation; supra-sentential structuring; and the norms which govern different types of interaction.

Hymes tries to define the concepts of speech community, speech styles and speech events in relation to the ethnography of speaking. According to him, a speech community is any group which shares both linguistic resources and rules for interaction and  interpretation.  On speech styles, he says it is more useful to see a speech community as comprising a set of styles (style, here, is seen as a mode of doing something). The speech styles also include the consideration of registers.

Style further considers the stylistic features (stylistic modes and structures). It is a concept which also further accounts for variation according to author, setting or topic but not as a general basis of description.

Hymes believes that speech events are the largest units for which one can discover linguistic structure and are thus  not coterminous with the situation. Speech events can occur in a non-verbal context. Several speech events can occur successively or simultaneously in the same situation. One of the ultimate aims of the ethnography of speaking is an exhaustive list of the speech acts and speech events of a particular speech community. For every speech event, Hymes holds the view that the ethnographer initially provides data which he reduced to the acronym, SPEAKING.

S          setting: the time and space within which speech events occur – physical circumstances

P          participants: the speaker and the listener (or the addresser and the addressee) in a speech    situation

E          ends: the goal/ purpose of the speaker

A         acts: the actual form and content of what is said by the speaker (i.e message form andcontent)

K         key: the tone/manner of the message

I           instrumentalities: the channel (verbal, nonverbal, physical) through which the message is passed across

N norms of interaction and interpretation: the tradition – specific properties attached to speaking/interpretation of  norms  within cultural belief systems

G        genre: the style (textual categories)

The emphasis of the ethnography  of  communication  is  based  on  the analysis of situated talk. Hymes, therefore, places emphasis on the interpretation of verbal strategies.

Pragmatics

Pragmatics as an approach to discourse is chiefly concerned with three concepts  (meaning,  context,  communication)  that  are   themselves extremely vast. The scope of pragmatics is so wide that it faces definitional dilemmas similar to those faced by discourse analysis. Earlier studies on pragmatics defined it as a branch of semiotics, the study of signs, but contemporary discussions of pragmatics all take the relationship of sign to their user to  be  central  to  pragmatics.  Jacob  Mey  (2001)  defines pragmatics as the  study  of  the  use  of  language  in  human  communication as determined by the conditions of society. Schiffrin (1994) focuses on

Gricean pragmatics, particularly his ideas about speaker  meaning and the cooperative principle, as useful approach to discourse analysis. It is an approach that focuses on meaning in context. The Gricean pragmatics or theory has been described as “the hub of pragmatics  research” (Schiffrin, 1994:190) hence its choice as a good demonstration of pragmatic approach to discourse analysis. Speaker meaning allows a distinction between semantic meaning and pragmatic meaning, and also suggests a particular view of human communication that focuses on intentions. Grice separates natural meaning from non-natural meaning. While the former is said to be devoid of human intentionality the latter is roughly equivalent to intentional communication. A critical feature of non- natural meaning is that it is intended to be recognized in a particular way by a recipient. Implicit in this understanding is a second intention - the intention that a recipient recognize the speaker’s communicative intention. Grice’s framework allows the speaker meaning to be relatively free of conventional meaning. It shows that what the speaker intends to communicate need not be related to conventional meanings at all, and not conventionally attached or related to the words being used. Mey (2001:48) affirms that logical and semantic criteria are not sufficient to comprehend a speaker’s intention. Rather, knowledge of the persons involved in the situation, their background and the context have to be taken into account. The Gricean pragmatics, therefore, provides a way to analyze the inference of a speaker meaning: how hearers infer the intentions underlying a speaker’s utterance.

Grice developed the cooperative principle on the assumption that conversation proceeds according to a principle that is known and applied by all human beings. According to him, we interpret language on the assumption that its sender is obeying four maxims which are:

Quantity:

1.   Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange)

2.  Do not make your contribution more informative than is required

Quantity:

Try to make your contribution one that is true

1.  Do not say what you believe to be false

2.  Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

Relation: Be relevant

Manner:

Be perspicuous

1.  Avoid obscurity of expression

2.  Avoid ambiguity

3.  Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)

4.  Be orderly

A maxim can be followed in  a  straightforward  way,  a  maxim  can  be violated because of  a  clash  with  another  maxim,  or  can  be  flouted. Schiffrin (1994) demonstrates how the maxims of  quantity and relevance can be analysed in discourse. She also reveals how reference and referring terms (definite and indefinite forms; explicit and inexplicit forms) function as  pragmatic  processes  in  speaker-hearer  interaction.  She  used  the maxims of quantity and relevance to describe the conditions under which people use different expressions to communicate referential intentions in discourse. She concludes by showing that referring sequences are  the outcome of pragmatically based choices concerning the provision of appropriate quantities of information in relevant ways, and thus  that discourse structures are created  (in  part)  by  the  cooperative  principle. What the Gricean pragmatics, therefore, offers  to  discourse  analysis  is  a view of how participant assumptions about what comprises a cooperative context for communication ( a context that includes knowledge, text, and situation) contribute to  meaning,  and  how  those  assumptions  help  to create sequential patterns in talk.

Conversation Analysis

Conversation analysis is an approach to discourse which has been articulated by a group of scholars known as ethnomethodologists. They are known as ethnomethodolgists because they set out to discover what methods people use to participate in and make sense of interaction. The ethnomethodologists examined what people did with their words, when they were not consciously producing samples for linguists. They felt that the examples produced by professional linguists were unnatural, since these utterances were not embedded in actually occurring talk, because actual talk, by contrast, was typically found in everyday  conversation (Mey, 2001:137). Mey further argues that contrary to the received bias of official linguistics, conversation talk was not in the least incoherent or irregular. It was discovered that the rules that conversation followed were more like the rules that people had devised for other social activities; and they resembled those discovered by researchers in sociology and anthropology for all sorts of social interaction, much more than they resembled linguistic rules. Hence the need to develop a technique that was in many respects different from the classical transcription techniques of linguistics. Schiffrin (1994:232) contends that conversation analysis provides its own assumptions, its own methodology (including its own terminology), and its own way of theorizing. The focus of the conversation

analyst is chiefly on the organization and structuring of conversation, and not so much its correctness. Schiffrin notes that even though conversation analysis has its roots in sociology, it still differs from other branches of sociology because rather than analyzing social order per se, it seeks to discover the methods by which members of a society produce a  sense  of social order. It is a source of much of our sense of social role. Applying the CA approach in the analysis of what she calls “there + BE + ITEM” data, Schiffrin  posits  that  conversation  analysis  approaches  to  discourse consider how participants in  talk  construct  systematic  solutions  to recurrent organizational problems. Among the many problems  that  are solved  are  opening  and  closing  talk,  turn  taking,  repair,  topic management, information receipt, and  showing  agreement  and disagreement. She mentioned that the solutions to such problems are discovered through the close analysis of how  participants  themselves  talk and to what aspect of talk they themselves attend: CA avoids positing any categories (whether social or linguistic) whose relevance for participants themselves is not displayed in what is actually said (239).

Variation Analysis

The initial methodology and theory underlying the variationist approach to discourse were those of William Labov.  The  variationist  approach  is  the only approach discussed in this section that has its origins solely within linguistics. The approach is concerned with the  study  of  variation  and change in language. The theory proceeds  from  the  assumptions  that linguistic variation is patterned both  socially  and  linguistically,  and  that such patterns can be discovered only through systematic investigation of a speech community. Thus, variationists set out to discover patterns in the distribution of alternative ways of saying the same thing, that is, the social and linguistic factors that are responsible  for  variation  (Schiffrin,  1994: 282). Although traditional variationist studies were chiefly concerned with the semantically equivalent variants (what Labov calls “alternative ways of saying the same thing”), such studies have now been extended to texts. Schiffrin also notes that  it  is  in  the  search  for  text  structure,  the  analysis of text-level variants and of how text constrains other forms, that  a variationist approach  to  discourse  has  developed.  She  further  contends that one of the main  tasks  in  variation  analysis  is  to  discover  constraints on  alternative  realizations  of  an  underlying  form:  such  constrains  (that can be linguistic and/ or  social)  help  determine  which  realization  of  a single underlying representation appears in the surface form of utterance. Again, since variationists try to discover patterns in the distribution of alternative ways of saying the same thing, that is, the social and linguistic constraints on linguistic  variation,  an  initial  step  in  variationist  studies  is to establish which forms alternate with one another and in which environments they can do so. Variationists use quantitative methods of

analysis to test hypothesis about constraints on the distribution of forms within connected speech – these methods differ markedly from those of formal linguists. Schiffrin explains that variationist approaches compare different explanations by searching for data that confirm (or cast doubt upon) the co-occurrences predicted by each explanation. She notes that although this is not a goal unique to variationists, variationist approaches add the strengths (and limitations) of quantitative analysis to such efforts. The variationists also consider the social context as part of the study of discourse units hence the setting in which a story is told allows (or inhibits) the display of linguistic competence – it considers social context under certain methodological and analytical circumstances. Schiffrin therefore concludes that the variationist approach to discourse is based within a socially realistic linguistics – in some ways, linguistics clearly pervades the variationist approach to discourse. Thus, a variationist approach to discourse is a linguistically based approach that adds social context to analyses of the use of language.

Discourse Rankscale

The concept of ‘rankscale’ is popular in grammar or linguistics. By ‘rank’, we mean the order of progression on a ladder. By that, we may have something at the base (bottom) and another at the apex (top). The grammatical rankscale in English grammar or linguistics as recognized by Halliday (1961, 2004) has the morpheme at the base, and the sentence at the apex. Therefore, the linguistic grammatical rankscale progresses from morpheme-word-group/phrase-clause-sentence. In the same vein, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) proposed a five-unit rankscale for discourse. Also, from the lowest to the highest, we have ACT-MOVE-EXCHANGE- TRANSACTION-LESSON.

1.           ACT: Act is the lowest unit on the discourse rankscale which is not divisible. It can be created using grammatical units such as words, groups, clauses or sentences. For example, (i) She has arrived (Act - Sentence), (ii) Over the bar (Act - Group), (iii) One (Act - word). An Act can be informative, eliciting or  directing.  Therefore,  there  are three types of Act. These are informative, elicitation and directive.

(i)                 Informative: Informative act gives  information  which  can either yield a positive or a negative response.  It  gives information to discourse participants. Let us consider the conversation between the following participants:

Speaker A: The food is ready

Speaker B: Thank you very much (Positive)

Speaker A:  Mum, I need some money. Speaker B:  I don’t have                                          (Negative)

(ii)               Elicitation: Elicitation act comes in form of Question-Answer discourse pattern. The first speaker here starts the discourse and invites the next speaker into the discourse. The response of the next speaker can be immediate or delayed depending on his interest in the discourse.

Speaker A: What is your name? Speaker B: Mary (Immediate)

(iii)             Directive: Directive act calls for action. It is a situation where the discourse opener throws the other participant into action. Husband:      Bring the food here

Wife:               (Jumps into action) Yes dear.

2.   MOVE:           Move is the unit of discourse that is immediately next in rank to act. It  consists  of  one  or more acts.  It can  be  simple  when the request is very straight to the point,  for  example,  ‘give  me  the bag’. It can also be complex when there  are  too  many  demands  in one, for example, ‘Dad, I need a school bag.  Not  only  that,  do endeavour to put some note books inside it. Don’t also forget to add a pen and two or more pencils. It should also contain some of the relevant textbooks. I think that  is  just  fair  enough  or  are  my demands too  much  for  you?’  There  are  different  types  of  move. They include the following:

(i)     Opening and answering moves: An opening move is used to start a discourse. It can ask a question, give information, request something, direct an action. The opening move is often followed or accompanied by an answering move as an answer to the opening move.

Driver: Where do I drop you off?                                            (Opening) Driven: Just keep moving. I’ll stop you when I get there.

(Answering)

(ii)   Focusing and framing moves: Focusing and  framing  moves  are more commonly found in the classroom situation. It can also be useful in a religious setting, for instance in the church where a sermon is to be preached. Focusing often comes before framing. Preacher:    The                        topic of          our sermon               today    is    the    end-time

Christians (Focusing). However, before we go  into  that, we need to explain who a Christian is (Framing).

(iii)             Follow-up or feedback move: the follow-up move serves as a verdict on the answering move. It is also very useful in the classroom situation. It is a situation where the teacher asks a question and comes back to assess to the correctness or otherwise of the question. In other words, the teacher gives judgment. For example:

Teacher: How many semesters make a session? Student: Two semesters: Harmattan and Rain. Teacher: Good of you. (follow-up move)

3.   EXCHANGE: An exchange is formed by a set of moves. It involves a situation where discourse participants engage in series of moves. An exchange can consist of a question, an answer, a comment or more, depending on the given situation. For instance, when the first speaker asks the next speaker a question and he responds and the first comes back to give a follow-up, an exchange can be said to have taken place. Consider the following example:

Speaker A: What time is it? Speaker B: Twelve thirty.

Speaker A: Thanks.

Speaker A: Let's come tomorrow. Speaker B: Oh yeah.

Speaker A: Yes.

Each of these exchanges consists of three moves. The first move ('What time is it?') functions as a question. The first move in (2) is heard  as making a request. Types of exchange include free exchanges, bound exchanges, opening exchanges, medical exchanges and closing exchanges. However, it should be noted that exchanges can still be as many as the discourses of different fields of study or profession.

4.   TRANSACTION: A transaction is made up of, at least, an exchange. In other words, therefore, a transaction can be called a set of exchanges.  Some framing words such as right, well, good, now serve as transaction boundaries. They are used to indicate the end of a transaction and the beginning of another one.

5.   LESSON: A lesson is made up by  many  transactions.  In  other words, therefore, a lesson can be called a set of exchanges.

Discourse  Features/Structure

There are different terms associated with the study of discourse. Some of them include what is known as discourse features or structures.

Discourse features/structures are essential in the study and analysis of discourse. The constraints of space will not permit us to discuss them in detail. The reader, therefore, should pay close attention to  the items in bold print.

Conversation takes place when, at least, two speakers are talking. In such a situation, both speakers are expected to contribute, either by talking and responding or listening. Discourse can be seen as the issue being discussed by two or more participants. Discourse opening is the preliminary exchange between participants. It is expected to open or start off a discussion or conversation. Discourse closing is the closing exchange between participants, which is expected to terminate the discussion. Discourse participants are the people who are involved in a conversation or discussion. Discourse interruption occurs when a speaker has the floor, and another makes a move to take over and successfully paves a way for himself/herself by taking over the discussion. Speaker is the person that has the floor to speak. Current speaker is the person that currently has the floor to speak. Next speaker is the person that takes over the floor from the current speaker. Speaker change occurs when the current speaker stops speaking and allows the next speaker to step in, a change has occurred. There is also a situation  in  which depending on the age, status and qualification of different speakers, they are assigned different roles in speech communication. This is known as Role sharing.

Adjacency pairs often feature as reciprocal exchanges. In other words, they are exchange structures in pairs. They often take the form of Speaker A asking question and speaker B responding (Question- Response), or Speaker A challenging speaker B and speaker B reacting to speaker A’s challenge.  Speech errors are errors made when a turn is going on. It may include hesitations or slot fillers such as: ‘er’,  ‘em’  ‘I mean’, ‘you know’, ‘as in’, etc. Again, in speech, when errors or mistakes (speech errors) are made by a speaker, he can quickly seek redress by withdrawing the earlier statement, by restating the intended. This is known as Repair Mechanism. Turn is the current opportunity that is given to a particular speaker to speak. When the turn of a speaker expires and another takes over, the other has taken his turn, which is known as Turn-taking. Speakers may also be involved in a topic which is uninteresting to one of the discourse participants and the dissatisfied participant may wish to bring in another topic for discussion, all he has to do in the situation is just to negotiate the topic by creeping into the discussion. This is known as Topic negotiation. Talk initiation is the process involved when a speaker tries to start off a talk with other participants. Situations also occur in which the current speaker seemingly forces the interlocutor to talk, probably, by asking question or demanding a response. This is known as Elicitation in talk. Summon is

a deliberate and conscious invitation to talk. It is a situation where the speaker uses an attention-catching device like calling the name of the current or next speaker in order to establish a (facial) contact before a new speaker or discourse is introduced.

6.0   Discourse Analysis and Social Context

Discourse analysis takes into account how  the  formal  and  situational features of language confer cohesion and coherence on text. The two main approaches to language identified by Cook (1989:  12)  are  sentence linguistics and  discourse  analysis.  The  former  is  mainly  concerned  with the study of the formal linguistic properties of language, especially the well-formedness of a sentence. This approach to language believes that contextual features, that is, the knowledge of the world outside language, which enable us to interpret and make meaning in our communication activities, should be excluded in the analysis of language. To  them,  the analysis of language should be based on the  system  of  rules  that  govern such  language,  and  not  on   any   external   circumstances.   Sentence linguists, therefore, restrict their inquiries to what happens within the sentence. Sentence linguists perceive discourse as a particular unit  of language above the sentence or above  the  clause.  Schiffrin  (1994:20) regards this as a formalist paradigm or view of discourse.

The other perspective to discourse which recognizes the  crucial place of context of situation and context of culture in the analysis of language has been described as the functionalist paradigm by Schiffrin (1994:20). The functionalists describe discourse as language use. Discourse in the functionalist perspective, according to Schiffrin, is ‘viewed as a system (socially and culturally organized way of speaking) through which particular functions are realized’ (32). The functional definitions of discourse assume an interrelationship between language and context (34). This approach explores the interconnectedness between language, culture and social context. The functionalists believe that, as Barbara Johnstone (2002:50) puts it ‘As people construct discourse, they draw on the resources provided by culture […] Each instance of discourse is another instance of the laying out of a grammatical pattern or expression of  a belief, so each instance of discourse reinforces the patterns of  language and the beliefs associated with the culture. Furthermore, people do things in discourse in new ways, which suggests new patterns, new ways of thinking about the world.’ Discourse analysis therefore takes into account non-linguistic issues like the speaker’s race, sex, age, class, occupation/profession, nationality, religion, location and so in the analysis of data. Those who approach discourse from the functional perspective believe that the formal properties of language alone are not sufficient for a

comprehensive understanding of discourse or text. This view of language or discourse owes much to the inspirational work J.R. Firth and other neo- Firthians like M.A.K. Halliday, Ruqaiya Hasan, John Spenser and Michael Gregory.

Discourse Analysis and Grammar

We mentioned above that the notion of ‘coherence’ is important in the study of discourse. We also noted that discourse does not have to be composed of well-formed sentences or conform to grammatical rules. Cook (1989:14) however notes that both formal and contextual links enable us to account for discourse. They enable us to see or have a feeling of how a particular stretch of language (whether written or spoken) hangs together or has unity.  The contextual links are features outside the language such as the situation, the people involved, what they know and what they are doing. These features enable us to construct stretches of language as discourse; as having meaning and a unity for us.  However, there is a kind of formal link that connects one sentence with another in discourse to create unity and meaning for the reader/hearer. The features of formal links refer to facts inside the language unlike those of contextual links that refer to facts outside the language. Cook observes that stretches of language treated only formally are referred to as text. While mainstream linguistics have traditionally concentrated on formal features which operate within sentences, discourse analysis goes beyond that by looking at the formal features which operate across sentences. The formal links between sentences and clauses are known as cohesive devices. As noted earlier, the works of linguistic scholars such as M. A. K. Halliday (see Halliday and Hasan, 1976) have had a lot of influence on the grammar or formal properties in discourse. By cohesion, we mean a linguistic unit by which a text functions as a single unit. It refers  to  the  relations  of meaning that exist within the text. In cohesion, the interpretation in discourse is dependent on another. In this situation, the one presupposes the other and cannot be fully understood without recourse to it. Cohesion therefore refers to the semantic relation that exists within the text. It exists where the interpretation of some element of a discourse is dependent on that of another. That is, the meaning of a given presupposition cannot be effectively interpreted without recourse or reference to another. Halliday and Matthiessen (2004:536) contend that the “cohesive resources make it possible to link items of any size, whether below or above the clause, and to link items at any distance, whether structurally related or not.”

Therefore, in this section, we shall consider the  grammatical terminologies which relate  to  the  discussion  at  hand.  Since  the construction of natural and sophisticated discourse might be impossible without a command of the resources offered by the grammar of the given language, the consideration of the importance of grammar is considered

expedient. Grammatical connections are displayed in both spoken and written discourses between individual clauses and utterances. These grammatical links can be classified under reference, ellipsis, substitution and conjunction.

Reference

Reference has to do with the relations  between  language  and  extra- linguistic reality. It has to do with retrieving information for referential meaning. Reference can also be seen as  a  relationship  between  an expression and  what  it  stands  for  in  the  outside  world.  Basically,  there are two types of  co-reference  relations.  These  are  endophoric  and exophoric references.  The  interpretation  of  endophoric  reference  lies within a text. In other words, cohesive ties are formed within the text. It can  be  further  divided  into  anaphoric  and  cataphoric  references. Exophoric reference, on the other hand, refers to a reference which plays no part  in  textual  cohesion.  The  interpretation  here  lies  outside  the  text. A simpler way of putting them is to say:

Exophoric Reference: Looking Outside Endophoric Reference: Looking Inside Anaphoric Reference: Looking Backward Cataphoric Reference: Looking Forward

Exophoric Reference (Looking Outside) – This has to do with a situation where the meaning of an expression is extratextual. In other words, the referential meaning cannot be located in the given text. The reader or analyst may have to think outside the particular text for full realization of meaning. For instance, if in the body of a text, a politician says, ‘I will only allow that after May 29’, the full understanding of the meaning here requires that the reader or analyst knows that May 29 stands for democracy day in Nigeria. It is the official day that political office holders hand over power to their successors after a four year tenure. Therefore, it is expected that the analyst here looks outside the text for the full meaning of the date in reference. Hence, exophoric reference is often used to refer to a world shared by sender and receiver of the linguistic message, regardless of cultural background, but equally often, references will be culture-bound and outside the experiences of the language learner (McCarthy 1991). Another example can be seen in the following sentence: ‘Since the government has placed embargo on employment, we have to go for private employment’. In this example, the reader does not need to look forward or backward in the text. It is expected that by shared beliefs or knowledge between the writer and the reader, the reader should look

outside the text to know that the government refers to the people in power in that particular country.

Endophoric Reference (Looking Inside) – This has to do with a situation where the meaning of an expression is intratexual. In other words, the referential meaning can be located in the given text.  The reader or analyst may only have to look forward or backward to locate what it refers to. Examples of endophoric reference are given under the anaphoric and cataphoric references below.

Anaphoric Reference (Looking Backward)

This is a kind  of  reference  which  is  backward  looking.  Here,  the  analyst has to look backward to get the desired meaning. Basically, the personal pronouns – he, she, it, they function typically with anaphoric reference. Beyond the personal pronouns, the  definite  article  –  the,  and demonstratives like – that can also be  used to make anaphoric reference. Some other words such as one, did, aforementioned, aforesaid, the former etc, can also be used. Consider the following example: If the president is thinking of re-election, he should better impress his followers  in  his first term.

Cataphoric Reference (Looking Forward)

This is a kind of reference which is forward looking. Here, the analyst has to look forward to get the desired meaning. Basically, the personal pronouns – he, she, it, they and other  pro-forms, which anticipate the noun phrases with which they co-occur, are used. The withholding of referents in cataphoric reference is a classic device for engaging the reader's attention. This can, sometimes, be done for quite long stretches of text.  For example, He should better impress his followers in his first term if the president is thinking of re-election.

In the examples above, while in the first (anaphoric reference), the analyst has to look backward to know who the he and his refer to; in the second (cataphoric reference), he has to look forward to know who the he and his refer to. In both examples, the he and his refer to the president.

Substitution

Substitution has to do with the relation between linguistic items, such as words and phrases. Substitution is similar to ellipsis, in that, in English, it operates either at the nominal, verbal or clausal level. The items commonly used for substitution in English are: One/ones, do, the entire clause Nominal Substitution:                       One(s): I offered her a drink. She said she didn't

want one.

Verbal Substitution:         Do: Did Ayo inform the School of the changes? He

might have done.

John reads now more than Sade is doing.

Clausal Substitution:        I asked him if they were all invited to the party, he

said he thought so.

Ellipsis

Ellipsis simply has to do with deletion. It is the omission  of  elements which are normally required by the grammar of a language, but which the speaker or writer assumes are obvious from the context of the text. To the speaker or writer, therefore, the deletion of such items will not bring about any serious change. The essence of such a deletion is to make room for grammatical cohesion in discourse. There are broadly three types of ellipses which include nominal ellipsis, verbal ellipsis and clausal ellipsis.

Nominal Ellipsis: At this level, emphasis is placed on a nominal element. In other words, a noun item may be deliberately deleted. Nominal  ellipsis often involves omission of a noun headword. For example, David liked the blue car but Daniel preferred the white.

Verbal Ellipsis: At this level, emphasis is placed on a  verbal  element.  In other words, a verb item may be deliberately deleted.

For example,          A: Will anyone be waiting?

B: Jude will.

Clausal Ellipsis: At this level, emphasis is  placed  on  clausal  element. With clausal ellipsis in English, individual clause elements may be omitted; especially the subject-operator omissions.

A: What do you have to do tomorrow? B: Play and sleep.

Conjunction

Conjunction is also  a  grammatical  device  which  is  used  to  achieve cohesion.   It includes the use of conjuncts such as  and,  yet,  although,  but etc. A conjunction presupposes  a  textual  sequence  and  signals  a relationship between segments of  the  discourse.  There  are  many conjunctive items. In fact, they are almost not exhaustive, except when considered from the natural data, especially spoken,  a  few  conjunctions (and, but, so and then) will be identified. Some of the types of conjunction include additive, adversative, causal, continuative and  temporal  meanings. Let us consider the following examples. Joshua is  good.  And  he's  very reliable (additive).   I've travelled all over  the world but I've  never seen a place as underdeveloped as this (adversative). He fell from the hill and got his bones broken (causal). She has to love you, after all you fulfilled all the

marriage requirements (continuative). I got  up  early  and  was  the  first  to get to school. (temporal sequence).

Discourse analysis and Vocabulary

This aspect can also be called lexical cohesion. When the word ‘vocabulary’ is used, what readily comes to mind is lexis. Lexical cohesion involves the use of lexical devices to achieve cohesion. Cohesion refers to the relations of meaning that words keep. Halliday and Hasan (1976) have also had a lot of influence on the vocabulary patterns in discourse.  This has to do with the consideration of related vocabulary items which occur across clause and sentence boundaries in written texts and across act, move and turn boundaries in speech. The two principal kinds of lexical cohesion are: reiteration and collocation.

Reiteration: Reiteration has to do with saying  or  doing  something repeatedly or several times. Reiteration means either restating an item in a later part of the discourse  by  direct  repetition  or  reasserting  its  meaning by exploiting lexical relations. It manifests in different ways: repetition (for instance, a word can be repeated  between  two  sentences  to  show emphasis), hyponym (when a super-ordinate term is  used  in  place  of  a word, for example, rose and flower. Rose is a hyponym of flower) and synonym (when two different but similar words are used interchangeably).

Collocation: Collocation is a term used for words that appear to move very closely together in a given  discourse.  They  are  words  that  move  in company of each other.  The  mention  of  one  immediately  brings  to  mind the other.  Such  words  are  regarded  as  collocates.  There  are  different types of collocation. They include complementaries (brother and sister), converse (wining and dining), antonyms (coming and going these several seasons), part and whole (building and door), part and part (driver’s seat and passenger’s seat), co-hyponyms  (fork  and  knife)  and  links  (teachers and students).   The  role  of  certain  words  in  organizing  discourses  to signal  discourse  structure  cannot   be   backgrounded.   Vocabulary, therefore, plays an important role in the analysis of discourse.

Discourse Analysis and Phonology

Phonology, as a branch of linguistics, also has a vital role to play in discourse. The aspect of phonology that is most significant in this regard is intonation. This is not far-fetched from the belief that the most exciting developments in the analysis of discourse have been in the study of the suprasegmental (with emphasis on intonation) rather than at the segmental level (the study of phonemes and their articulation) and partly because the teaching of intonation in phonology is open to challenges from a discourse analyst's viewpoint.

At the segmental level, emphasis is placed on phonemes. In other words, it is the angle where we give consideration to pronunciation (teaching). To do the teaching-learning of such phonemes appropriately, beyond the production of sounds, similar sounds are contrasted with other words, for example, the phonemes /p/ and /b/ in English contrast in the words pill and bill. However, at the suprasegmental level, attention is shifted to longer stretches. For instance, in the consideration of a stretch of spoken English discourse, the rhythmic pattern of utterances is measured by the occurrence of stressed syllables. The regularity or otherwise of such stressed syllables and the alternation between strong and weak 'beats' in various patterned recurrences dictate the rhythmic pattern. Rhythm is an important element in the teaching of phonology. Likewise in spoken discourse, rhythmicality is seen in varying degrees in long stretches of speech. It also points attention to the speaker, whether he is a native speaker or second learner of the language. It brings to fore how careful a speaker is in the consideration of deliveries such as (news) broadcast, talks, teaching, reading speeches and citations, as well as some ordinary conversation. Also, since English is seen as a stress-timed language, unlike most Nigerian languages which are syllable-timed, the spoken discourses of the natives of both origins are likely to differ. The principal distinction is brought as a result of the difference between stress-timing and syllable-timing.

Considering intonation in discourse, speech can be divided  into small units in which each unit has at least a main or nuclear prominence. This prominence is marked by some variation in pitch, either predominantly rising or falling. These are different tunes. Beyond these two, there can still be a longer list such as fall-rise tune, rise-fall tune, etc. They give different meanings to different utterances. The  prominence given to any syllable in an utterance is a pointer to  any  significant variation in pitch that the speaker might use. It is the duty of the speaker to decide on how the information is to be distributed into tone groups and where the tonic is placed. The speaker rests his decision  on  what  he needs to say, the information he intends to pass across and what he wants to be highlighted for the listener. With the right tune, speakers manage large stretches of interaction, in terms of turn-taking and topic-signalling even as they use different pitch levels to interact. The intonational cues such as turn-taking, topic-framing and topic-signalling interact with other factors like syntax, lexis, non-verbal communication and context, and are typical of how the different levels of encoding have to be seen. It is worthy of note to remark that the interpretation of tone choice in  spoken discourse is to see tones as fulfilling an interactive role in signalling the intended information in discourse.

Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an innovative, multidisciplinary approach, which tackles a number of important social issues. It draws on many of the methodological tools of more traditional fields such as critical linguistics, text linguistics and sociolinguistics (Osisanwo, 2011). In fact, Norman Fairclough’s approach or model draws upon the Hallidayan systemic functional linguistics (SFL) theory; his concern with language, discourse and power in society allows the integration of sociological concepts as well. CDA researchers do not merely ‘simply appeal to ‘context’ to explain what is said or written or  how it is interpreted’, rather, they have come to see language as a form of social practice (Fairclough, 1992:47). Discussions on the origin and developments of CDA have often centred around the quartet of Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak, Teun van Dijk and Paul Chilton (Blommaert, 2005: 21). Another major  scholar whose propositions and initial theory have greatly encouraged the development of this theory is Roger Fowler, the proponent of Critical Linguistics. CDA has been viewed as an offshoot of Critical Linguistics.

Different analysts, especially discourse analysts and critical discourse analysts, have tried to examine what CDA is all about and sets out to achieve. Most of them mainly considered this from the angle of its concern. There have been divergences in their opinions since the discipline itself is multidisciplinary. According to van Dijk (2000:353) CDA is ‘a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context’. Van Dijk’s position here shows that, for CDA to actually become realistic, society must be in place, since it is concerned with the social issues, especially political issues. His definition also reveals that CDA sets out to resist social inequality and expose the social ills, which possibly pervade or seemingly affect  the human psyche. CDA is a type of discourse analytical study that primarily focuses on ‘opaque as well as transparent structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in language’ (Wodak, 1995:204). It takes into account how issues are manifested through language. It studies the way texts and talks are used in enacting, reproducing and resisting social power abuse, dominance and inequality (van Dijk, 2000). Its domain of concern mainly centres on social and political issues. Wodak (2001:2) also says CDA is mainly concerned with analyzing people as well as transparent structural relations of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in language.

Another very useful definition of CDA that encapsulates most of the other definitions is the one given by Fairclough (1995b). According to him, CDA is the study of often-opaque relationships of causality and determinism between:

(a)   discursive practices, events and texts, and

(b)  wider social and cultural structures.

Fairclough and Wodak (1997:271-80) give a summary of the main tenets of CDA to include:

(i)                 CDA addresses social problems

(ii)               Power relations are discursive

(iii)             Discourse constitutes society and culture

(iv)              Discourse works ideologically

(v)                Discourse is historical

(vi)              The link between text and society is mediated

(vii)            Discourse analysis is interpretive and explanatory, and

(viii)          Discourse is a form of social action.

While Fairclough (1989:24-6) identifies and describes three stages which are salient in CDA practice, O’Halloran (2003:2) identifies two stages. Fairclough identifies description stage, interpretation stage, and explanation stage. At the description stage, the formal properties of a text are considered. At the interpretation stage, the relationship between text and interaction is the central concern, that is, getting to see the text as a very useful resource in the process of interpretation. The  explanation stage looks into the relationship between interaction and social context, with emphasis on the processes involved in production and interpretation vis-à-vis their social effects. O’Halloran (2003:2) claims that at the interpretation stage, CDA focuses on the cognition of texts, thereby unveiling how text can mystify the events being described for the understanding of the reader. At the explanation stage, according to him, CDA focuses on the connections between texts and socio-cultural context. The focus in this regard is on the relation between linguistic analysis and the socio-cultural context (O’Halloran, 2003:2). However, a major observable defect in this regard is CDA’s concentration on the explanation stage than the interpretation. A good analysis within the framework, therefore, requires a concise understanding and application of the two stages of interpretation and explanation.

The three stages and two stages of CDA which were identified by both Fairclough (1989:24-6) and O’Halloran (2003:2) respectively try to ask; How is a text produced? What are the properties put together in producing it? What informs its production? Does it have any affinity with the socio-cultural setting in which it is produced? In relation to social theory, CDA sees discourse as a social phenomenon (Blommaert, 2005) and works in two distinct directions. First, it has interest in the theories of power and ideology, hence, it borrows from the ideas of Michael Foucault (1975, 1982), Antonio Gramsci (1971), with bias for hegemony.

Second, it has interest in making attempt to overcome structuralist determinism, hence it borrows mainly from Anthony Gidden’s (1984) theory of stucturation.

Certain notions are central to the whole idea of CDA. Some of them are: dominance, hegemony, ideology, class, gender, race, discrimination, interests, reproduction, institutions, ‘social structure and  social  order’ (van Dijk 2000:354). CDA focuses primarily on social problems and political issues and the way issues relating to power and dominance in society are enacted, confirmed, challenged or reproduced by language, or more specifically discourse structures. Van Dijk (1993:249) asserts that CDA tries to answer questions on the relations between discourse and power, dominance, social inequality and the discourse analysts’ position in the relationships.

Conclusion

We have tried in this chapter to discuss aspects of discourse analysis we consider fundamental  to  the  study  and  analysis  of  discourse.  We attempted to define the concept of discourse and the linguistic analysis of discourse. Further, we discussed some of the linguistic approaches to discourse, discourse rankscale and discourse features. The relationship between  DA  and  social  context,  DA  and  grammar,  DA   and  vocabulary, and DA and phonology were also examined. We also endeavoured  to introduce the reader to critical  discourse  analysis  (CDA).  As  we  noted  in the introductory part of the chapter, DA is  a  vast  discipline  and  insights from it have been used in solving problems that originate  from  so  many other disciplines and domains of study. The reader may wish to read the chapter on ‘computer-mediated discourse’ (CMD) by Innocent Chiluwa and the one on ‘pragmatics’ by Akin Odebunmi to complement our effort in this chapter.

References and Further Reading

Austin,   J.L.   (1962).     How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press.

Blommaert,    J.    (2005).   Discourse:    A    Critical   Introduction.    Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cook, G (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Edward Arnold.

Fairclough, N. (1998). Political Discourse in the Media: An Analytical Framework. In Bell, A. and Garrett, P. Eds., Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.

Fairclough, N. (2002). ‘Critical Linguistics/Critical Discourse Analysis.’ In Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Ed. Kristen Malmkjaer. New York: Routledge. pp.102-106.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. New York: Routledge.

Fairclough, N.  and  Wodak,  R.  (1997).  ‘Critical  discourse  analysis.’  Ed.

Teun van Dijk, Discourse Studies. Vol. 2, 258-71.

Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et Punir: Naissance de la Prison. Paris: Gallimard

Foucault, M.  (1982).  ‘The  order  of  discourse’.  In  Shapiro,  M.  (ed.),

Language and Politics. London: Blackwell. Pp 108-138

Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London & New York: Routledge.

Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G. and Trew, T. eds (1979). Language and Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Gramsci, A. 1971 Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. (ed. Q. Hoare, and G. N. Smith). London: Lawrence & Wishart.

Grice, H.P.  (1975):  ‘Logic  and  conversation’  in  Cole  and  Morgan  (eds).

Syntax and Semantics. Vol 3. New York: Academic Press.

Goffman, E. ( 1976). ‘Replies and Responses.’ Language in Society, 5,257- 313.

Goffman, E. 1979. Form of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Gumperz, J. J., and D. Hymes. (1972). Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York Holt, Rinehan and Winston.

Halliday,    M.A.K.    (1973).         Explorations in  the  Functions  of  Language.

London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1975). Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday,      M.A.K.      (1978).    Language    as    a Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London; Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1983). Foreword to M. Cummings and R. Simmons’ The Language of Literature: A Stylistic Introduction to the Study of Literature. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Halliday, M.A.K.and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.

Harris, Z. (1952). ‘Discourse Analysis.’ Language, 28, 1-30.

Hymes, D. (1962). ‘The Ethnography of Speaking’ in T. Gladwin and W.C. Sturtevant (eds) Anthropology and Human Behaviour. Anthropological Society of Washington.

Hymes, D. (1964). ‘Towards Ethnographies of Communication Events’ in Giglioli (1972)(ed). Language, and Social Context Harmondsworth; Penguin Books.

Hymes, D (1972). ‘On Communicative Competence’ in Pride J.B. Holmes J. (eds). Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. pp. 259 – 293.

Janks, H. (1997). ‘Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool.’ Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. Vol. 183: 329- 341.

Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. McCarthy, M. J. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mey, L. J (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

O’Halloran, K. (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Osisanwo, A. (2010). ‘Language, Politics and Development:  A  Lexico- Semantic Analysis of Selected Political Posters.’ International Journal of Languages and African Development. Vol. 2, No. 1. IDEE. pp. 159- 176.

Osisanwo, A. (2011). ‘Language and Ideology in Tell and The News’ Representation of Nigeria’s 2003 and 2007 General Elections.’ Unpublished Ph.D Thesis,  Department  of  English,  University  of Ibadan, Ibadan.

Osisanwo, A. (2012). Fundamentals of English Phonetics and Phonology.

Lagos: Femolus – Fetop publishers.

Osisanwo, W. (2003). Introduction to discourse analysis and pragmatics.

Lagos: Femolus – Fetop publishers.

Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson (1974). ‘A Simplest Systematic for the Organisation of Tturn-taking for Conversation.’ Language, 50(4),

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sinclair, J. McH., and R. M. Coulthard (1975). Towards an Analysis of

Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

van   Dijk,    T.A.    (1987).   Handbook  of     Discourse  Analysis.      New   York: Academic Press.

van Dijk, T.A. (1993). ‘Principles of Critical Discourse  Analysis.’  Discourse and Society 4[2], 249-283.

van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.