Discourse Analysis

Common Features of Discourse Analytical Approaches

Discourse analysis approaches combine a set of theoretical assumptions about what discourse is and how it is used with a rigorous methodology that determines what kind of data are appropriate and how they should be analyzed. The distinctions between different versions of discourse analysis have led to many heated debates within the field, particularly where researchers are working within a specific discipline (such as psychology).

There are, however, underlying commonalities across discourse analysis approaches. First, most theorists agree that discourse—all forms of talk and text (and for some researchers, this includes bodily movements or eye gaze within social interaction)—is central to everyday life and thus, to human relationships. The term discourse is commonly used to highlight the focus on language use rather than grammatical or linguistic features.

The second area of commonality is the assumption that discourse is social action, that social practices are performed in and through discourse. This is seen in three ways. First, discourse is treated as constructing or constituting the world. That is, discourse does not merely reflect reality; rather, it constructs reality in particular ways. When people describe the world, they are thus building up a certain picture of the world (or person, for instance) that is open to challenge, collusion, or negotiation. This is a crucial departure from many linguistic and communication theories, which argue that language is a passive medium (or conduit or pipeline) through which ideas, thoughts, and so on are accessed.

Second, social action is also produced through there being many versions of the world that can be constructed in discourse. That is, if people assume discourse constructs reality, then it follows that different discourses construct reality in different ways. For example, newspapers may report on the same event, but the story is different each time. There is thus variability in talk and text, as discourse is produced in different contexts and for different functions; hence, as the function or context changes, so does the discourse. Discourse analysts argue, to a greater or lesser extent, that each version is as true as any other, that people cannot objectively claim to know the real version of events. Reality may thus be regarded as a series of multiple realities, each of which are brought to life through various discursive practices. It is within this area that there is much cause for dispute among discourse analysts, as some argue that to make a relativist claim (that there is not one truth but many truths) means that one cannot then state which version of the truth is the right or correct one. Those who take a more realist line (that there is an underlying truth behind discourse), however, claim to be able to take a political stance (a point of view or perspective) on an issue.

...