Discourse and Discourse Analysis

The word of discourse comes from Latin language ‘discursus’ that means ‘run from one side to side’ (Mulyana, 2005: 4).  The word ‘discursus’ itself is arranged from ‘dis’ (from different sides) dan ‘currere’ (run). Discursus is same as run from different direction. According to Webster (1983: 522 in Mulyana, 2005:  4), discourse has several meaning that are (a) words communication, (b) expression of ideas, (c) written treatise, lecture, etc.  

Van Dijk (1997: 2) classifies concept of discourse into three dimensions that are (a) Language use, (b) communication of beliefs (cognition), and interaction (in social situations). It describes that discourse focuses on verbal structures and cognitive processes at first, the second on discourse as interaction in society. The Van Dijk’s theory can be shown in this diagram.

  Table 2.1 Van Dijk’s Discourse Analysis

Discourse as interaction in society means that concept of discourse besides focuses on verbal structure; it must be related with social function of language. Discourse does not only consist of sound and graphics, and abstract sentence of forms (syntax) or complex structures of local or global meaning and schematic forms. Van Dijk (1997: 14) says, “They also may be described in terms of the social actions accomplished by language users when they communicate each other in social situations and within society and culture at large.”

Discourse is generally different from each other, even when it is produced in similar social situations. In making sense, understanding, interpretation, meaning and many other notions used above belong not only to the realm of discourse structures and social interactions, but also to that of mind. That is why communication of beliefs (cognition) is said as one of dimension of discourse.    

Discourse as language use contains of, what its components are, how these components are ordered, or how they may be combined into larger constructions. In this point, discourse focuses on various structures. The structural description of discourse, we might start by considering it as sequence of sentences, that is, as sentence that follow each other in specific order. Some of these sequences will constitute meaningful, coherent and acceptable discourses, but others will not. According to Van Dijk (1997: 5), structural description should spell out the various relations and conditions that define the ‘discursivity’ of sequences of sentences.

As language use, Bamberg and Moissinac (2008: 395) state that discourse is broadly taken to mean the use of language beyond that of a single sentence. It concludes that discourse is not only composition of sentence but also describe composition of whole text which contains more than one sentence. Discourse has higher occupation than phoneme, morpheme, word, phrase, clause, and sentence. Position of discourse from other language units is shown in this diagram.

                Table 2.2 Discourse in Language Units

                           

A discourse is an extended sequence of sentences produced by one or more people with the aim of conveying or exchanging information (Ramsay, 2003: 112).  Such extended sequences can be hard to follow: each sentence has to be understood and assimilated into a growing body of information, and this can only be done if the links between the current sentence and the previous discourse are clear. The links are requirements of wholeness in discourse that consists of cohesion and coherence.

Discourse is categorized into spoken and written discourse. Spoken or talk discourse comprises everyday conversation and other types of dialogue.   Edmonsond (1991 in Mulayana, 2009: 5) states that spoken discourse has excesses than written discourse that are natural, has intonation, and contains situational context.

While written or text discourse defines the large set of discourse types comparing, for example news report in news paper, scholarly articles, novels, textbook, etc. Kridalaksana (1984: 208 in Mulayana, 2009: 5) asserts that discourse can be realized into word, sentence, paragraph, or intact composition (book, novel, encyclopedia, etc.).

Discourse analysis is the description and analysis of discourse texts or utterances (either verbal or written utterances longer than a sentence) carried out through the examination of how these texts are situated in specific social and cultural contexts (Findlay, 1998: 49). Discourse analysis investigates quality of s discourse. It can be seen from the structural, cognition, or social aspects of the discourse.

Discourse analysis is the part of linguistics: the science of language.   Fromkin, Blair, and Collins (2000: 183) say:

“The study of discourse, or discourse analysis, is concerned with many aspects of linguistic performance as well as linguistic competence. Discourse analysis involves question of style, appropriateness, cohesiveness, rhetorical force, topic/ subtopic structure, differences between written and spoken discourse, and so on.”

As a fairly complete unit in a text, discourse is the largest unit in language hierarchy of sentence. Stubb (1983: 1) says, “Discourse is language above sentences or above the clause, and therefore to study larger linguistic units such us conversational exchanges or written texts.” Because of that, analyzing discourse needs higher theory than traditional linguistic which only focuses in the internal aspects of sentence. That is why discourse analysis is placed higher than the other linguistic theories as shown in this diagram.

          Table 2.3 Discourse Analysis in Linguistic Theory