Defining discourse

[zmaalej]

Dear Cynthia,

Why should you feel embarrassed about anything? If you allow me, I would
like to start with giving the reference of the book I used in my last post:
Deborah Schiffrin, 1994 _Approaches to Discourse_ Oxford/Cambridge:
Blackwell.

Now back to critical discourse analysis (CDA). I read a post on this list
about it I can't remember by whom. However, as I know it, it is different
from how it has been described. CDA originated in the work of East Anglia's
writers such as Roger Fowler and Gunther Kress. The first major publication,
as far as my knowledge goes, is by Fowler, _Linguistic Criticism_, where he
sets the foundations of the discipline. Many publications followed by the
same authors and different ones such as the well-known Norman Fairclough
(1989), "Critical Discourse Analysis." Parlance, 2: 1, 78-92 (if you have no
access to this publication, which has been replaced by Language and
Literature established in Lancaster, I sure can send you a copy). Fairclough
is also known for publications on language and power and language and
ideology.
    The gist of CDA is an overall concern with unmasking or exposing
ideology behind any use of language. Fundamental to this concern are notions
such as "habitualization" and "defamiliarization" (taken from the Prague
School's Functional Sentence Perspective), point of view (taken from
literary criticism), and cohesion (from systemic linguistics). I think the
notion of point of view is basic to CDA: Fowler talks about "psychological"
point of view, "ideological" point of view, and "spatio-temporal" point of
view (127). The major criticisms that have been addressed to CDA are (i) the
rather strong claim of wanting to denounce ideology behind the use of
language (which is seen as politically immoral?), and (ii) not having a
frame of its own but allowing for an eclecticism to dominate by borrowing
from TGG, FSP, literary criticism, systemic linguistics, pragmatics (the
notion of language as interaction), etc.
    It should be noted that CDA is not restricted to studying any particular
discourse; Fowler studied literary discourse and media or newspapers
discourse. In his introduction, Fowler (1986: 12) writes: "the significance
of linguistic structures in literature is a function of the relationships
between textual construction and the social, institutional, and ideological
conditions of its production and reception." (for a brief and comprehensive
account of Critical Linguistics or CDA, see The Encyclopedia of Language and
Linguistics, 1994?).

I've got a course now. I hope I have been of some help.
Zouhair

-----Original Message-----
From: Cynthia Roy <cbroy at UNO.EDU>
To: DISCOURS at linguist.ldc.upenn.edu <DISCOURS at linguist.ldc.upenn.edu>
Date: 27 ÌÇäÝííå, 1999 0:33
Subject: Re: Defining discourse


In light of the erudite summation of Schiffrin's explanation of
discourse, I am embarrassed; you have presented her argument
succintly and well, thanks, and I agree that it leaves us open to
move past definitions and on to other interesting topics.  I am
interested in the area of "critical discourse analysis." I'm having
a hard time getting a handle on it because it seems to be an
analysis that criticizes particular uses of language; unilaterally
determining whether or not the discourses are appropriate, useful, not
oppressive, etc..at least that's the sense I get...it seems to
determine speaker intentions without ever asking the speakers themselves?
Please do not jump all over me; I'm simply inquiring about the
nature of such an analysis?  It seems that it's being used to make
judgements about people and institutions?  Or have I quite got it
wrong?

Thanks, Cynthia Roy


Dear all,

I would like to contribute selectively to this discussion as any one single
question could be subject-matter of a dissertation.

As a metaphorist myself, I liked Michelle Kells's metaphor of discourse
making and processing as "shuttling and toggling." However, the linguist in
me aspires for a more palpable, scientific?, thoughtful view. Leaving
historical discourse developments aside, I believe that Schiffrin (1994)
offers one of the most defensible views of discourse. Bridging the gulf
between the formalists' view of discourse as sentences and the
functionalists' focus on language use , Schiffrin (39) proposes a view of
discourse as utterances(although I am not convinced that this is a
reconciliation of formalism and functionalism). Utterances, of course,
should be conceived of as in pragmatic theory (in the sense developed by
Eggert rather than that of McComiskey). To corroborate Eggert's view of
utterances, I would say that length, syntax and medium are not criteria that
constrain utterances (for a distinction between sentence and utterance, see
e.g. Levinson's _Pragmatics_ (1980)).
    Such a view of discourse as developed by Schiffrin will allow for talk
about a host of collocations across registers (in Halliday's sense of field,
mode and tenor) such as spoken discourse, written discourse, political
discourse, economic discourse, legal discourse, promotional discourse,
literary discourse (although this type is peculiar, see e.g. Searle's "The
Logical Status of Fictional Discourse" (1975), _Pratt's Toward a Speech Act
Theory of Literary Discourse_ (1977), Pratt & Traugott's _Linguistics for
Students of Literature_ (1980)), etc.
    Notice that I have deliberately avoided talking about a definition of
discourse. Is a definition desirable? Would a definition be possible in the
presence of an ever-increasing number of discourse-as-utterance discourses?
Would a definition be useful in the light of this diversity of discourses,
which show adopt different moves, strategies, plans, goals, etc.? What plus
would such a definition give to DISCOURSE? I think that DISCOURSE is
utterances, and the the subfields of DISCOURSE define themselves according
to registers, moves, goals, methodologies, etc.

Zouhair

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Bucholtz <bucholtz at TAMU.EDU>
To: DISCOURS at linguist.ldc.upenn.edu <DISCOURS at linguist.ldc.upenn.edu>
Date: 25 ÌÇäÝííå, 1999 3:57
Subject: Defining discourse


>As promised, and in the hopes of finding common ground--or at least
>fruitful connections--in the vast interdisciplinarity of the list, we're
>sending out our first topic for discussion:
>
>What is discourse? What definition(s) do you find useful, and what
>definitions seem unhelpful or off the mark? What frameworks or theories
>inform your definition?  Alternatively, do you feel that defining discourse
>is pointless, wrong-headed, detrimental (as Paul Bove suggests in his
>chapter on discourse in *Critical Terms for Literary Study,* Univ. of
>Chicago Press, 1995)? If so, what other approach would you advocate?
>
>We're looking forward to a range of responses from numerous disciplinary
>(and interdisciplinary) perspectives.
>
>The listowners
>
>Mary Bucholtz
>James Cornish
>Chris Holcomb
>Marty Jacobsen
>

</pre>