Análise Do Discurso

Helena Maria Gramiscelli Magalhães
Análise do Discurso
Montes Claros/MG - 2012

Copyright ©: Universidade Estadual de Montes Claros
UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE MONTES CLAROS - UNIMONTES
REITOR REVISÃO TÉCNICA

João dos Reis Canela Admilson Eustáquio Prates
Cláudia de Jesus Maia
VICE-REITORA Josiane Santos Brant
Maria Ivete Soares de Almeida Karen Tôrres Corrêa Lafetá de Almeida
Káthia Silva Gomes
DIRETOR DE DOCUMENTAÇÃO E INFORMAÇÕES Marcos Henrique de Oliveira
Huagner Cardoso da Silva
DESIGN EDITORIAL E CONTROLE DE PRODUÇÃO DE CONTEÚDO
CONSELHO EDITORIAL Andréia Santos Dias
Maria Cleonice Souto de Freitas Camilla Maria Silva Rodrigues
Rosivaldo Antônio Gonçalves Clésio Robert Almeida Caldeira
Sílvio Fernando Guimarães de Carvalho Fernando Guilherme Veloso Queiroz
Wanderlino Arruda Francielly Sousa e Silva
Hugo Daniel Duarte Silva
REVISÃO DE LÍNGUA PORTUGUESA Magda Lima de Oliveira
Ângela Heloiza Buxton Marcos Aurélio de Almeida e Maia
Arlete Ribeiro Nepomuceno Sanzio Mendonça Henriques
Aurinete Barbosa Tiago Tatiane Fernandes Pinheiro
Carla Roselma Athayde Moraes Tátylla Ap. Pimenta Faria
Luci Kikuchi Veloso Vinícius Antônio Alencar Batista
Maria Cristina Ruas de Abreu Maia Wendell Brito Mineiro
Maria Lêda Clementino Marques Zilmar Santos Cardoso
Ubiratan da Silva Meireles
Catalogação: Biblioteca Central Professor Antônio Jorge - Unimontes

Ficha Catalográfica:
2012
Proibida a reprodução total ou parcial.
Os infratores serão processados na forma da lei.
EDITORA UNIMONTES
Campus Universitário Professor Darcy Ribeiro
s/n - Vila Mauricéia - Montes Claros (MG)
Caixa Postal: 126 - CEP: 39.401-089
Correio eletrônico: editora@unimontes.br - Telefone: (38) 3229-8214
Ministro da Educação Chefe do Departamento de Ciências Biológicas
Aloizio Mercadante Guilherme Victor Nippes Pereira
Presidente Geral da CAPES Chefe do Departamento de Ciências Sociais

Jorge Almeida Guimarães Maria da Luz Alves Ferreira
Diretor de Educação a Distância da CAPES Chefe do Departamento de Geociências

João Carlos Teatini de Souza Clímaco Guilherme Augusto Guimarães Oliveira
Governador do Estado de Minas Gerais Chefe do Departamento de História

Antônio Augusto Junho Anastasia Donizette Lima do Nascimento
Vice-Governador do Estado de Minas Gerais Chefe do Departamento de Comunicação e Letras

Alberto Pinto Coelho Júnior Ana Cristina Santos Peixoto
Secretário de Estado de Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior Chefe do Departamento de Educação

Nárcio Rodrigues Andréa Lafetá de Melo Franco
Reitor da Universidade Estadual de Montes Claros - Unimontes Coordenadora do Curso a Distância de Artes Visuais
João dos Reis Canela Maria Elvira Curty Romero Christoff
Vice-Reitora da Unimontes Coordenador do Curso a Distância de Ciências Biológicas

Maria Ivete Soares de Almeida Afrânio Farias de Melo Junior
Pró-Reitora de Ensino Coordenadora do Curso a Distância de Ciências Sociais

Anete Marília Pereira Cláudia Regina Santos de Almeida
Diretor do Centro de Educação a Distância Coordenadora do Curso a Distância de Geografia

Jânio Marques Dias Janete Aparecida Gomes Zuba
Coordenadora da UAB/Unimontes Coordenadora do Curso a Distância de História

Maria Ângela Lopes Dumont Macedo Jonice dos Reis Procópio
Coordenadora Adjunta da UAB/Unimontes Coordenadora do Curso a Distância de Letras/Espanhol

Betânia Maria Araújo Passos Orlanda Miranda Santos
Diretor do Centro de Ciências Humanas - CCH Coordenadora do Curso a Distância de Letras/Inglês

Antônio Wagner Veloso Rocha Hejaine de Oliveira Fonseca
Diretora do Centro de Ciências Biológicas da Saúde - CCBS Coordenadora do Curso a Distância de Letras/Português
Maria das Mercês Borem Correa Machado Ana Cristina Santos Peixoto
Diretor do Centro de Ciências Sociais Aplicadas - CCSA Coordenadora do Curso a Distância de Pedagogia
Paulo Cesar Mendes Barbosa Maria Narduce da Silva
Chefe do Departamento de Artes

Maristela Cardoso Freitas
Autor
Helena Maria Gramiscelli Magalhães
PhD in Linguistics and Portuguese Language (Pontifícia Universidade Católica
de Minas Gerais (PUC-MINAS). MA in English Language (Universidade Federal
de Minas Gerais).Undergraduation in Humanities - Languages: Portuguese,
English and German (Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais (PUC-
MINAS). Teaching License in Portuguese and English. Author published two
books: O Ensino e Aprendizagem de Língua Estrangeira (UFMG Publisher,
December 1987), in partnership with Dr.Reinildes Dias; and Aprendendo com
Humor (Mercado de Letras Publisher, December, 2010). Currently author is a
lecturer and reviewer of academic texts and a content writer of course books
for UAB/Unimontes/CAPES both in the Portuguese and in English languages.
Author is also a specialist in evaluating Undergraduation courses for the Con-
selho Estadual de Educação de Minas Gerais, Brazil.r.
Sumário
By way of presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
UNIT 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Who is afraid of terminology? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.1 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.2 Discourse and Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.3 Discourse analysis(DA) and discourse analysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.4 Types of discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
1.5 Theory of Enunciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.6 Language heterogeneity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.7 Speech Act Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
UNIT 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Who is scared of Discourse Analysis? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.1 Why discourse analysis? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2 How to do discourse analysis? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.3 Additional information on discourse, text, speech and language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.4 Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.5 Critical discourse analysis (CDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.6 Critical discourse analysis and gender identities: a very brief account . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2. 7 Discourse analyses of distinctive types of texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
UNIT 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
What does History tell about DA? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.1 Position of Discourse Analysis (DA) in the linguistic pragmatic and historical studies:
brief history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
3.2 PowerPoint slides: history of DA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3 Irony and discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

UAB/Unimontes - 8º Período
3.4 By Way of Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3. 5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Evaluation Activities (EA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
8
Letras/Inglês - Análise do Discurso
By way of presentation
Hi, there? I want you, dear students, to read the following material and be prepared for Glossary
some discussion. Let’s now chat about it. Verbal language and
Let’s start from the very beginning and try to understand things. Notice that the cartoonist Nonverbal language:
uses both verbal and nonverbal languages. Let us review some content you studied in the I remind you that the
Introduction to Linguistics and Semantics courses because they will be referred to in this course former is communica-
tive system developed
book when I proceed to the various D.A of texts.
by means of linguistic
structures. The latter
Look at the following illustrations. consisting of a range
of features often used
together to aid com-
munication but with no
linguistic structures. Re-
fer to the Introduction
to Linguistics course
book of your course to
review those words and
their concepts.
Enunciates are sen-
tences in the sense
that enunciates are
for discourse what
sentences are for the
materialized oral or
written texts.
Figures 1 and 2: Illustrations of nonverbal language-ASL- alphabet with labels and a child wrapped up in
warm to face winter.
Source: www.fotosearch.com/.../nonverbal communication
Because the author in the illustrations makes no use of linguistic structures, the
communication is characterized as nonverbal. Verbal language would include linguistic
structures, language itself, langue as defined by Saussure and adepts. But let us move onward
and know about nonverbal language components. The main components of this system are:
• Adornment - Clothing, jewelry, hairstyle
• Chronemics - Use of time, waiting, pausing
• Haptics - Touch
• Kinesics (body language)- Body motions such as shrugs, foot tapping, drumming fingers,
eye movements such as winking, facial expressions, and gestures
• Locomotion - Walking, running, staggering, limping
• Oculesics- Eyecontact
• Olfactics - Smell
• Posture - Position of the body, stance
• Proxemics (proximity)- Use of space to signal privacy or attraction
• Silence - Pausing, waiting, secrecy
• Sound symbols - Grunting, mmm, er, ah, uh-huh, mumbling
• Vocalics - Tone of voice, timbre, volume, speed (British Council/BBC- Available at: http://
www.teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/non-verbal-communication. Access in: September,
2010.)
9
Of the above features, body language (particularly facial expressions and gestures), eye
contact, proximity and posture are probably those which learners most need to be aware of in
terms of capturing meaning, avoiding misunderstandings and fitting in with the target culture.
Now, to memorize what these types of communication are, take a look at the following text.
FUCK! PETE, IS THAT YOU???
See that the cartoonist uses two components of

nonverbal language Kinesics and Oculesics since the chick
reveals surprise, guaranteed by the linguistic structures
followed by interrogation marks, and as it makes eye
contact with his ‘friend’.
Now let us move on with a discussion on DA with
the notion of subject in the cartoon. Let us start with the
following question:
How many subjects can you detect in this cartoon?

▲
Figure 3: The fried
If you answered I did not understand your question, you would be absolutely right
friend. for feeling confused. You probably do not know what I am asking you to do, and all you could;
Source: Cartoon sent maybe; do was to find the subject of the enunciate/sentence ‘Fuck, Pete, is that you?’ You would
through E-mail by probably answer that the demonstrative THAT is the subject and you would be absolutely right.
Heliane Gramiscelli F. In the usual syntactical and linguistic analyses people would use language structure and syntax
de Mello in October,
2009. to help you find the subjects, among other functions, of sentences. They could also be of use
in the analysis of the excerpt Fuck, Pete; and you would classify the expression as interjection/
vocative and you would be surely correct. But this is not discourse analysis; it is syntactical and
linguistic analysis and neither of them is part of the content of your course, my friends. Then how
would we answer my question under the prism of DA?
Notice that the chick opens the dialog with the ‘Pete’ in potential and, because they
participate in that dialog, they are interlocutors. If it is so, we already have two subjects in
discourse: the chick, who formulates the anguishing question to the fried egg/chick and his
prospective-friend,who is the second subject. ‘Pete’ and the chick are not only the interlocutors
but also subjects of discourse.
However, you could argue: if’ Pete’ did not answer his friend’s question how come he is an
interlocutor? He did not utter a single word! It is because human beings are dialogical in nature.
Glossary And, even if your interlocutor does not answer your question out loud, he is there listening to
Dialogical means you and participating in this dialogical process. This makes them interlocutors. This is so true that
interaction by means of even if you are alone you can open a dialog with your mind or with someone at distance. We are,
a dialog. I repeat, dialogical in nature. The Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin (1984) coined such process
Dialogism.
Are there other subjects in the cartoon (discourse)? Yes, there are other subjects: the
cartoonist/author, the reader and the empirical subject. But how do you detect this last subject?
The cartoon is on humor, and it is the empirical subject, your previous knowledge that tells
you where humor poses: on the fact that the fried egg would allegedly be the future Pete.
Such a conclusion would lead us to infer that Pete’s friend – an egg, a chick to be – was dead
and Pete would be surprised and astonished, which can be detected through the punctuation
(interrogation marks) used at the end of the enunciate/rhetorical question as I have already
explained previously, as well as the strength of the lexical choice of the expletive ‘ fuck’.
All this can be visualized and understood through discourse analysis as the linguistic
structures by themselves would not account for such comprehension. And yet, you need the
linguistic structures for the discourse analysis of written and oral texts and, most of all, if you are
dealing with verbal communication, you must have a good knowledge of the linguistic code to
do a competent discourse analysis. Let me give you an example.
I received the following E-mail from MORTIMER last week (February, 14th, 2012).
10
De carlinhosdias5@terra.com.br - carlinhosdias5@terra.com.br
U-R-G-E-N-T: LAST NEWS ABOUT LYBYA CRISIS.
‫نرگدهیاسشقنامهریخمشچوراویدشقنتسینادیپهیاستتسینادیپهیاستفررگارون‬
‫تسینادیپهیاستفررگاروننادیم‬
‫دشقنتسینادیپهیاستفررگارونتسینادیپهیاستفررگارونامهریخمشچوراویدقن‬
‫امهریخمشچوراوی‬
‫تسینادیپهیاستتسینادیپهیاستتسینادیپهیاستفررگارو‬
‫نرگدهیاسشقنامهریخمشچوراویدشقنتسینادیپهیاستتسینادیپهیاستفررگارون‬
‫تسینادیپهیاستفررگاروننادیم‬
‫دشقنتسینادیپهیاستفررگارونتسینادیپهیاستفررگارونامهریخمشچوراویدقن‬
‫امهریخمشچوراوی‬
AS SOON AS I GET FURTHER NEWS, EVERYBODY, I WILL KEEP ON INFORMING YOU!

Charlie.
Did you understand the idea, my friends? Maybe you could say something about this text if
you consider the enunciation in the headlines: Last News about Libya crisis. You can deduce that
there was old information about Libya crisis before and your previous knowledge would remind
you that it is a country under a political crisis and with an internal war. But, how about the
message which is written in Arabic? How are you going to do DA if you are not able to decode
this foreign language? The same would happen with English: if you do not understand words,
sentences and grammar you may be not able to grasp the text meaning.
All right then, dear students, this semester you are going to work with a discipline named
Discourse Analysis (DA) Applied to the English Language. As pompous as this title may read I
assure you that its content is not as frightful and complex as it seems at first sight. Problem is
that the lack of information about DA terminology and the way it works sometimes make
things difficult for the students. The result is that they become unable to use DA’s specific
nomenclature, which I must confess, may be in many ways hard to understand, if and only if,
teachers do not make them simpler for their students. Nomenclature refers to words and all of
them can be explained in any language.
Another obstacle for dealing with DA properly could be that you must not make use of
words other than the ones fixed in its terminology especially when participating in academic
events or during classes on DA. It follows that if you are not able to use it properly, that is, if you
are not conscious and sure of the meaning of each word, you may be in trouble. For such reasons
when dealing with DA no words can be neglected or left aside without explanations or pertinent
examples.
Intended for a 90-hour discipline, this course book aims at facilitating your learning the
content of DA by providing you with the necessary pertinent theories and with the discourse
analysis of diverse texts in distinct social contexts. The material also serves to demonstrate that
DA underlies and helps understanding language functioning, and constitutes an indispensable
factor for the efficient learning and teaching of a foreign language (FL) - English.
It will be evidenced, on the one hand, that to do discourse analysis competently does not
desperately depend upon a solid historical background of how scholars became interested in
this use of language. However, on the other, it is always relevant to know about the manners
in which they examined speech and writing, as well as the way they worked on the division of
discursive devices and on its terminology before going on with the analysis.
Because of that, in Unit 1, I discuss the various and diverse words commonly used in dealing
with DA. To guarantee your efficient learning of such terminology practice has been duly
provided along with explanations. In Unit 2 the emphasis is put on both oral and written texts
along pertinent argumentation on DA nomenclature and its procedures. To a certain extent,
Unit 2 is dedicated to the analysis of various texts and, for doing so, diverse texts were used to
improve your ability to do DA and your previous learning of English as a second language.
Purposely shorter than the other Units and located in the last unit to confirm my assertion
that a deep solid knowledge on the history of DA is not a must when you deal with its practice,
Unit 3 is dedicated to the history of DA, pretentious as it may sound, throughout times. In this
11
Unit, I also discuss the views and approaches of DA by revisiting different notions and postulates
proposed by contemporary linguists and scholars. To make things simpler I included an account
of DA’s history with a PowerPoint slide show. In this Unit, as much as in the other two, I analyze
texts discursively and propose consolidation exercises because I believe that practice with DA
is far more important than being successful in learning too many theories. All the practice with
analyzing texts discursively is supported by the French approach to DA with no repulsion for any
other DA line of thought. It is a mere question of choice.
In sum, I will demonstrate that DA may be a partner who will help you improve your English.
It follows that another purpose will be achieved as you get in touch with DA content: you will
find out that it is not as hard as many linguists and teachers want to make it appear. It is easier
than you might have thought. Moreover, knowledge on DA can be acquired delightfully with
(almost) no pain and lots of fun, fair play and gain.
Having all this in mind, we are about to enter the intricate, and probably unknown, but
attractive world of DA and its amazing procedures, which will invariably intrigue you.
I want you to track this course book and dive into the richness and beauty of discourse
by means of several analyses in such a way that at the end of the course you will have been
convinced that knowing how to do discourse analysis is fundamental for improving both
teaching and learning English.
It is always well to remember that the teaching of any content must always depart from
the student’s previous knowledge, and that the central aim of teaching must be the holistic
formation of the individual. Still, we must keep in mind that discourses are analyzed through
language and that sometimes it is hard to dissociate them or tell one from the other.
Having this in mind I define for the discipline Discourse Analysis Applied to English the
following objectives:
General Objective: Help students and teachers understand what discourse analysis is and
how discourse operates.
Specific Objectives:
• Tell the difference, if any, among, speech, text and discourse
• Define the terms discourse and analysis
• Identify and discuss enunciation and utterances in texts and discourses.
• List and name the multiple voices present in texts and discourse.
• Identify and classify speech acts in discourse.
• Analyze various texts in different social contexts.
• Discuss the role of irony in discourse,
The purpose of teaching with such objectives is to open students’ minds for analyzing
language and discourse adequately. The course is also intended to form a cooperative and
critical individual ready to understand language better. So, by the time, we have reached these
objectives and you have learned the content proposed in this coursebook, you will have realized
that DA plays a central role in the study and learning of any language.
Therefore, get ready to face DA, and believe me, you will have no problems in following
the lessons. Moreover, and most importantly, you can always count on your competent tutor for
explaining the topics.
As I mentioned previously, this coursebook is divided into three (03) Units, which are also
divided in subunits as follows:
UNIT 1: Who is afraid of terminology?

1.1 Analysis
1.2 Discourse and Text
1.3 Discourse analysis (DA) and discourse analysts
1.4 Types of discourse
1.4.1 Written and spoken discourse
1.5 Theory of Enunciation
1.5.1 Enunciation and instance of enunciation
1.5.2 Enunciates and utterances
1.6 Language heterogeneity
1.6.1 Polyphony and Interdiscursivity: the subjects of/in discourse.
12
1.6.2 Social, ideological and discursive formations.

1.7 Speech Acts Theory
1.7.1 Intentionality in discourse: Locutionary, Illocutionary, and Perlocutionary acts.
1.8 References
Unit 2: Who is scared of Discourse Analysis?

2.1 Why discourse analysis?
2.2 How to do discourse analysis?
2.3 Text, speech and discourse
2.4 Identity
2.5 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
2.5.1 Fairclough and Critical Discourse Analysis
2.5.1.1 Ideology: work relations, entrepreneurs and profits
2.5.1.2 Ideology: relations of power, work and production.
2.6 Critical discourse analysis and gender identities: a very brief account
2.7 Discourse analyses of distinctive types of texts
2.8 References
UNIT 3: What does history say about DA?

3.1 Position of Discourse Analysis (DA) in the linguistic pragmatic and historical studies
brief history
3.1.1 Discourse Analysis - brief story
3.2 PowerPoint slides: history of DA.
3.3 Irony and discourse
3.3.1 Analysis of texts
3.4 By Way of Conclusion
3.5 References
The content of this coursebook is grounded on those units and subunits and the topics
suggested for debates and discussions complement it.
To support your work I will provide you with some illustrative analyses of texts and will
demand you to do tasks where I include diverse texts in distinct social contexts. In these tasks,
I will be dealing with several categories of discourse analysis such as ideas, messages, thoughts,
themes, identities, subjects/polyphony, speech acts, enunciation, enunciates and irony, to name
only a few. Purposeful repetition of some DA refrains in sentences and words, unpleasant as they
may seem, are absolutely necessary for linking themes.
This course book on DA offers you interactive icons through which you can test your
knowledge (Tasks), give it a second thought (To learn more), check the meaning of some (most
probably unknown) words and expressions used in DA’s terminology (Glossary), and orient
you to deal with the topics better and indicate sites in the Web and virtual libraries which aim
at supporting learning (Clues). All these interactive icons are suggested along the text and
identified as follows:
CLUES TO LEARN MORE TASKS GLOSSARY
I remind you that tasks include activities and exercises done during the course. Clues
include anything that serves to guide or orient you in the solution of a question, problem,
mystery, a hidden subject, an identified identity etc.
It is fundamental that you take both the content and the activities of this coursebook
seriously and read the texts suggested for extra reading. They all constitute basic elements not
only for the development of your knowledge, for supporting eventual debates, but mainly for
grounding the English language learning and teaching.
From now on, dear students, investigate all notions and concepts contemplated in this
course book, question them, suggest alternatives for analysis, discuss the topics, try new things
and ways, make a difference and emerge from the course with a broader knowledge of the
English language.
This coursebook is not intended, and no one would be that pretentious, to exhaust the
issues involved in Discourse Analysis or in any other issue.
The author.
13
UNIT 1
Who is afraid of terminology?
▲
In this Unit I will use the word discourse mainly to refer to occurrences connected to both Figure 4: A person
afraid of something,
spoken and written languages with few, if any, references about them separately and with no maybe in panic.
worry for focusing on which is which in my analyses. After all, the notion of text – which I would Source: http://www.
define as a basic communicative unit - remains undefined, though many concepts may be found anxietysolutions.info/
elsewhere. To tell (almost) all the differences and similarities between discourse and text, if any, panic-disorder-are-you-
afraid-of-fear/, access in
would take a far too long course book. But I will provide aspects pertinent to your understanding april, 22 2012.
of both oral and written languages discourse analysis.
To take your panic away, let me start with notions and concepts of some words and
expressions.
1.1 Analysis
Analysis, from Greek analysis, means fragmentation, division into parts. In Discourse
Analysis enunciates – oral or written – are split in parts called phrases. You must have studied
this expression in two disciplines of your course, ‘Introduction to Linguistics’ and ‘English
Morpho-Syntax’ when you studied expressions as noun phrase, verb phrase, adjective phrase
and adverbial phrases. To analyze a sentence syntactically you must divide it into parts labeled
as subject, predicate, direct object and indirect object, adjuncts etc. Therefore, I would strongly
suggest that you return to these course books and refresh this content.
Interestingly, the same notion of splitting and fragmenting is used in the noun phrase
Psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud’s specialty, an area whose object of study is the psyche (soul,
(sub) conscience) fragmentation.
15
1.2 Discourse and Text

Since its introduction to modern science, there has been no agreement among linguists
about the use of the term discourse. Some would use it in reference to texts, while others claim it
Glossary denotes speech.
The word ‘discourse’ comes from Latin ‘discursus’ and means “running to and from” and
Interdiscursivity: The
generally refers to written or spoken communication. I would say that discourse is a behavioral
fact that in (almost)
any text different dis- and verbal unit, being corpuses of texts or communication, which has internal relations with
courses interfere and itself as well as to external other discourses. Thus, a discourse is not locally isolated; rather
may be in accordance interdiscursivity takes part in the constitution of a discourse.
or in competition with Discourse is an interactive entity whereas text implies non-interactive monologue. Texts are
each other. Every text
supposed to have cohesion through grammar; discourse coherence operates between underlying
contains traces of other
texts. Interdiscursivity sentences. But cohesion and coherence can both operate in a given text or discourse. Some authors
is also referred to as define a text as an abstract theoretical construct which is realized in discourse. In short, text is to
polyphony and interdiscourse as sentence is to utterance. For some authors language is actualized in the text.
textuality, the latter Some linguists would define discourse as a continuous stretch of (especially spoken)
no longer interpreted
language longer than a sentence, often constituting a coherent and cohesive unit such as a
only as the material
quotations present in lecture, joke, an argument, essay, or literary and non-literary narratives. Other scholars would
the text. use the terms text and discourse almost interchangeably, the former referring to the linguistic
product, and the latter implying the entire dynamics of the processes. In fact, novels, as well
as short conversations or groans might be equally and correctly named discourses. This
would suggest, strange as it may seem, that text and discourse are dependently autonomous.
Contradictory as it may appear, fact is that discourse emerges from language, so to speak.
Because it is not easy to unambiguously clarify what a discourse is, it seems reasonable to
describe features which are shared by all its kinds.
Saussurean’s concepts of langue and parole, a division of language, are of great use at this
point. The French linguist defined langue as a system that enables people to speak as they do,
and parole as a particular set of produced statements. Following this division and definitions,
discourse would relate to parole.
To make the notion of discourse clearer one trait should be added: discourse is always
produced by somebody whose identity, as well as that of the interlocutor, is significant for
understanding the message properly. Furthermore, discourse always happens in either physical
or linguistic context-interaction and within a meaningful fixed time, whereas langue does not
refer to anything; it is an abstract entity constructed in space. Consequently, only discourse may
convey messages thanks to langue which is its framework. The term discourse has taken various
and sometimes very broad meanings. Let us check some of its definitions:
Available at: www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/
discourse.andwww-rohan.sdsu.
edu/.../index.ht...–USA.Access in
16
January, 2012.
1.3 Discourse analysis (DA) and

discourse analysts
The first expression, DA, refers to a qualitative approach that has been adopted and
developed by social constructionists and whose focus is any form of written or spoken language:
a conversation or an academic paper. The main topic of interest of DA is the socio-historical
underlying structures which may be assumed or played out within that conversation or paper. It
concerns the sorts of tools and strategies people use when engaged in communication, such as
slowing down speech for emphasis, using metaphors, and choosing particular words to display
affect, hate, love and so on.
Discourse analysis is sometimes defined as the analysis of language beyond the level of
the sentence. This contrasts with types of analysis more typical of modern linguistics, which
are chiefly concerned with the study of grammar: the smaller bits of language, such as sounds
(phonetics and phonology), parts of words (morphology), meaning (semantics), and the order of
words in sentences (syntax).
Discourse analysts study larger meaningful chunks (pieces of language) as they flow
together. Some discourse analysts firstly consider the larger discourse context in order to
understand the smaller one, that is, to find out how it affects the meaning of the whole
(discourse).
Take a look at the following example to see how the small parts (chunks) inadequate
division may lead to the incomprehension of the text. Try to read the chunks separately.
◄ Figure 5: President
Obama seems
surprised at
something. Could
it be because of the
following chunks?
Source: http://www.
conservativecommune.
com/2011/06/oh-my-
house-votes-to-restrict-
us-role-in-nato-libya-
operation-to-non-
combat-operations-
only/. Access: Feb. 2012.
However, these/ markers/ do not necessarily convey/ what the dictionary/ says or /
means as meaning/ may/move /on to other/ sense effects.
17
Did you get what I mean? The wrong division (almost) makes comprehension impossible.
President Obama would have been caught by surprise and could not understand his own
language. Of course, not. This is obviously a joke for any native speaker can understand and
divide chunks in his language correctly. Moreover, the photo has no relation to the fragmented
chunk. The text should be read as:
However, these markers do not necessarily convey what the dictionary says / or means / as
meaning may move on to other different sense effects.
Discourse Analysis discusses the organization of language in discourses; it studies sentences
and clauses as they flow together in written or oral texts. Discourse analysis is also concerned with
language use in social contexts, and in particular with interaction or dialogue between interlocutors
(speakers). Pragmatics (roughly, it is the way speakers use and manipulate language) must also be
taken into consideration in DA. According to Furlough (2002), an English linguist and sociologist I will
refer to in Unit 2, DA considers simultaneously three dimensions when dealing with the text either
spoken or written: visual messages, discourse practice and sociocultural conditions.
DA of written language may include a study of topic development and cohesion across the
sentences, while an analysis of spoken language might focus on these aspects plus turn-taking
practices (moment in which each interlocutor takes his turn to speak), opening and closing
sequences (social cliché protocols used in dialogs, such as Good Morning, How are you, Yes,
of course, Not at all, etc) of social encounters, or narrative structure. Discourse implies length
whereas text maybe very short as in EXIT, ENTRANCE, NO SMOKING. Some authors would speak
of the written text of a speech.
The role of DA is to investigate and analyze discourse - the entity Pêcheux (1997) selected
as focus of his endless search. According to him, discourse was the point to which issues about
language, history and the subject would converge. On her turn, Orlandi (2005, p.15) would
say discourse gives an “idea of path, trajectory, running, movement. Then discourse would be
word in motion, language practice”. This discursive movement gives language the power to
arbitrate about communicating or not because the relations among language, subjects and
meanings produce a multiplicity of effects sometimes unpredictable. Text, I reiterate, is a basic
communicative unit, and the same could be said of discourse.
The discourse analyst tries to identify categories, themes, ideas, views, roles, subjects,
intentions, and actions etc., within the text. The aim is to detect commonly shared discursive
resources (shared patterns of talking). The DA analyst tries to answer questions such as “how the
discourse helps us understand the issue under study, how people construct their own version of
an event, and how they use discourse to maintain or construct their own identity. (Available at: What
is discourse analysis? .www.eamonfulcher.com/discourse_analysis.html. Access in January, 2012).
To proceed on with their analysis of oral texts, discourse analysts make use of discourse
markers, term they ascribe to words like ‘well’, ‘oh’, ‘but’, and ‘and’ that break our speech up into
parts and show the relation between parts. ‘Oh’, for example, prepares the hearer for a surprising
or just-remembered item, and ‘but’ indicates that the sentence to follow is in opposition to the
previous one. However, these markers do not necessarily convey what the dictionary says they
do as they may move on towards other meaning effects. For instance, some people use ‘and’
just to start a new thought, and some people put ‘but’ at the end of their sentences, as a way of
trailing off gently. Realizing that these words can function as discourse markers it is important
to prevent the frustration you can experience if you expect every word to have its dictionary
meaning every time it is used. Words have connotative meanings, of course. (Available at: www.
eamonfulcher.com/discourse_analysis.html-Access in: September, 2011)
To find out how all this works, let us discuss the following cartoon.
Figure 6: Cartoon ►
on language and
discourse.
Source: Benita Epstein
Cartoons. Teach with
humorous literary
cartoons.
18
This text was produced with verbal and nonverbal languages. As I explained previously, the
image is the nonverbal language and in the cartoon in question the written part is the verbal
language. The text is portraying both oral and written communication. I will deal with them
altogether.
I remind you that, in doing DA, analysts try to work with identifying categories, themes,
ideas, views, roles, subjects, intentions, actions and so on, within the text. In this text, wisdom
can defeat violence would be a central theme and nonviolence the category. Why? It is because
the written language brings a known philosophical English proverb that, constructed with
metaphors (a semantic phenomenon) and personification, conveys the idea that knowledge
(pen) is mightier than the sword (violence, fight, wars). The manifest subjects in the cartoon play
interesting roles as they are animals personifying humans who are interlocutors in discourse.
What was the cartoonist’s intention? Why are the pigs discussing philosophy? Because humans
are no longer interested in or able to discuss relevant matters would be a possibility. But the
great question is: Why is it that the enunciator does not understand that the pen is mightier Task
than the sword? Would the irony mean that humans cannot tell the difference between the
metaphorical ‘pen’ and ‘sword’? What would you say, dear students? Discuss this cartoon
with your tutor and
Let’s track back to some aspects you already know about language but this time directing find out the cartoonist’s
them to DA. Most of these types of discourse may also apply to texts. intention.
1.4 Types of discourse

Discourses are characterized as a class of either written or spoken text, which is frequently
and casually specified as containing production of potential response.
Generally, and depending on the aspect of language emphasized in the text, one
distinguishes three types of discourse: informative (which conveys some knowledge); narrative
(stresses the expression); argumentative (supported by reasoning or argumentation). Under this
division, the previous cartoon I analyzed is argumentative. These types often mix and overlap,
and of course they do, since no texts would be constructed only with one type of discourse. If
they did, wouldn’t they be boring or dull?
As to the classification of kinds of spoken texts, recent studies have pointed out that oral
communication, after the examination of features in various situations, divided discourse into six
types: presentation, message, report, public debate, conversation and interview, division whose
criteria of production include factors such as presence, or absence of interaction, number of
speakers and their relation to each other (their rights, or rank/social class), and flexibility of topic
along with selection and attitude of interlocutors towards the subject matter.
Nevertheless, oral discourse might alter its character, for instance: in the presentation of
a lecture during which students may interrupt the enunciator to ask questions and the type
changes to interview, or conversation. This classification allows for the anticipation of the role
of partakers as well as goals of particular acts of communication. The typology discussed does
not exhaust the possible division of discourse types. Nowadays, linguists endeavor to create a
classification that would embrace all potential kinds. Also, other studies would present a shift of
interest in this field, presently resulting in an emphasis on similarities and differences of written
and spoken communication/discourse.
1.4.1 Written and spoken discourse
It is broadly known that there are easily detectable differences between speech and writing
such as: writing includes some medium which keeps record of the message, which could be
perpetuated; speech – whose ‘words may be taken with the winds’ according to the folklore
saying - involves only articulation and air. However, there are certain dissimilarities that are less
apparent such as speech develops in time and writing in space; the speaker utters with speed
that is suitable for him, even if it is not appropriate for the interlocutor or if repetition is required.
However, it is unimaginable to think of a conversation in which every sentence is to be repeated
or rephrased. Writing needs no speed. You can take your time but be aware of the deadlines…
19
Now let us discuss another meaning for

speech. Watch figure.
The American President elect delivers
a speech and makes his first address to
Congress. Notice that the word speech is
replaced by address as you can read in the
chunk ‘Obama’s first address to Congress’.
That is the way the Americans sometimes use
speech interchangeably with address, and
this being another meaning for speech. Notice
that it is not an informal conversation but a
political address.
And yet, the meaning of discourse
remains as it fits the 3: a definition I mentioned
previously: ‘formal and orderly and usually
extended expression of thought on a subject’,
and also the 5: notion which says: ‘a mode of
organizing knowledge, ideas, or experience
that is rooted in language and its concrete
contexts (as history or institutions): critical
discourse’. Unlike the English language where
people use the words address and speech
to refer to the specific moments of political
and formal communication, and discourse
to the content of speeches and addresses,
in Portuguese, discurso/address refers to
formal texts/lectures independent of their
being specific political/formal forms of
communication. Did you see it? Linguistic and
cultural differences apply.
▲
Figure 7: President
Barack Obama’s first Here is an exercise for you. Trace back to figure 4 then answer these questions:
address to Congress
(2009). 1) How many subjects would you detect, dear students?
Source: Available at: www.
whitehouse.gov/photos.../
weekly-address-it..Access
2) What would have been the photographer/author/s intention on producing the photo?
in January, 2009.
Answers: Subjects: ___________________________________________________________________________
Author’s intention: ___________________________________________________________________________
Let me move onward with information about speech/spoken and written discourses.
Taking sociology as its home discipline, which instead of borrowing methods from
linguistics developed its own methods to study language, as reported by Harold Garfinkel
(1974), the most detailed picture of real talk in society has been supplied by the analysis of
conversation in ethno methodology.
Contrastingly, the more remote languages of Africa, Asia, Oceania, and South America
have been centred on oral cultures. They have been spared from campaigns against ‘incorrect’
usage and from the bookish equation of orderly language with written language — some never
devised writing systems at all – the non graph cultures, for example. On speaking, skills high
values were placed in community activities such as story-telling, which vitally supported cultural
traditions against the ravages and dislocations of slavery and colonialism. Whole systems of
spoken discourse signals were developed to organize the story-line with its individual events
and their participants, as discovered by Longacre and his group (1990) in an investigation
in which he signalled to some 40 languages of East and West Africa where a ‘switch reference
marker’ (shown as S/R) is used at the high point of a story when the main characters alternate
major actions and functions.
20
As talking is generally spontaneous, it may result in mistakes and (over)repetition,

sometimes less coherent sentences are used in which even grunts, stutters or pauses may
be meaningful. Speakers and listeners are usually acquainted to each other or the speaker
is conscious that his interlocutor hears him and, therefore, can adjust the register. Since
interlocutors are often in face-to-face communication they take advantage of ‘non-verbal’ or
‘paralinguistic language’, of signals as grimaces, gesticulation, and make use of expressions such
as ‘well, ‘here’, ‘now’, or ‘this’, terms generally classified as language phatic function.
Other features of oral discourse include the use of nonsense vocabulary, slang, contracted
forms (I’m, we’re, you’ve), specific rhythm, intonation and speed. In speaking it is not possible to
conceal mistakes (CRYSTAL 1995, pg. 291, DAKOWSKA 2000, pg.07). You can rephrase them, thus
correcting them but what was said has no way back.
Speech develops in time, writing in space, and the latter needs a means to carry the
information. As authors of written texts do not often know who is going to read the text, they
cannot adjust to readers’ specific expectations. Unlike speakers writers can usually review and
reconsider the content of their work for almost an unlimited period of time. This makes texts
more accurate, coherent and grammatically correct and may allow for the use of a complex
syntax and sophisticated vocabulary.
As they do not instantly respond to the text, but keep a dialog with the author/text by
negotiating meaning, readers cannot ask for clarification, therefore a neat paragraph division
and layout are of vital importance to make comprehension easier. Moreover, owing to the lack of
context, unlike speech, written language omits expressions such as ‘now’ or ‘here’, because texts
are read in different times and places and such uses would make them ambiguous or ‘strange’’.
Another feature typical of writing, but absent in conversation/oral discourse, is the organization
of pictures, photos, tables, formulas, or charts resources portrayed only in written form (CRYSTAL,
1995, pg.291).
The division in oral and written discourse is quite straightforward, and yet, they can be
combined; for example, when a teacher explains (orally) something and writes on the board, or
when a speaker writes down some notes to be read during his speech.
Having described some aspects relevant to the comprehension of DA, it is essential to
remember that what matters in language learning is interaction in both written and spoken
modalities. Because of that, one of the major concerns of discourse analysts has been the way
students ought to be involved in the DA learning process.
1.5 Theory of Enunciation

1.5.1 Enunciation and instance of enunciation
Roughly speaking, enunciation refers to all the circumstances involving the making of
and production of an utterance. Enunciation can be composed by the information provided –
headlines, titles, sub headlines, subtitles, nonverbal devices – before the beginning of most, but
not all, texts. In his Theory of Enunciation, Benveniste (1966) advocates that “the conditions of
using the linguistic structures are not [...] identical to the use of language.” (1989, p. 81).
The Instance of Enunciation is a model of dialogic organization that specifies the process
of constructing relations between enunciator-speaker/hearer-reader, in a certain given discursive
place and time as constitutive aspects of discursive reference which must be considered when
one refers to words, language, enunciation and discourse. According to this concept of Instance
of Enunciation, when the locutor enunciates he constitutes himself enunciator (I) and addresses
a hearer (YOU) who is simultaneously instituted as interlocutor to talk about something.
Benveniste (1974, p. 79-88. v.2) called this model the Formal Apparatus of Enunciation that
includes the subjects necessarily involved in the implementation of discourse:
1. a locutor (L), who institutes himself as the enunciator (En) in and by the linguistic activity;
2. A hearer, co-instituted in and by the linguistic activity as interlocutor, both instituting
themselves linguistic and cognitively at a discursive time (T) and in a space (S). Let me
introduce you to the interlocutors.
21
Figure 8: Illustration of ► The yellow subject is the

interlocutors. locutor and enunciator 1 (one).
Source: Availableât: The blue subject is locutor and
http://acompasso.
blogspot.com.br/2009/04/ enunciator. 2. How come they
bem-vindos.html. Access: both play the same role and
February, 2012. are differentiated only through
numbers ONE (1) and TWO (2)
and colors? Because they are both
performing the same functions
(locutor and enunciator) but one
of them STARTS the dialog thus
becoming the subject I (Pronoun)
talking to a HEARER, who is subject
YOU. When YOU replies he becomes
subject I (Pronoun). Each of these
turns represents one instance of enunciation. Because both locutors are engaged in a dialog,
they are interlocutors here (specific space) and now (given time). The analysis I can do is that the
nonverbal language helps you realize that both interlocutors are happy. Why? It is because they
are smiling. But keep your eyes open: was there interaction? Yes? No? Why? Do you need to utter
words to guaranteee interaction?
Now, we are going to discuss the next cartoon on instances
of enunciation and communication.
The discussion for the cartoon in figure 9 would be the
same for the one in figure 8 except for the fact that there is
only one balloon in the cartoon, for locutor 1 (pronoun I), who
starts the dialog. I ponder: would there be only one locutor
because there is only one balloon? No. Dialogs need two
people. Although the second locutor was not contemplated
with a balloon, he is one of the interlocutors in discourse.
He is silent because he hears what locutor 1 is saying. But he
would soon answer thus becoming subject I, interlocutor 2.
Again, discourse analysis for figure 10 would be the same
as those for figures 8 and 9 but with a difference. The second
▲ interlocutor is going to answer enunciator 1 with a nonverbal
Figure 9: Illustration of device: he is going to hit him on the head. He delivers no utterances and yet communication is
interlocutors.
fulfilled not with the interlocutor/enunciator but with the reader, who is another subject present
Source: Available at: http://
crioasas.blogspot.com ›. in this discourse.
Access: February, 2012. Instances of enunciation, which are
installed in turn-taking, are basic referential
spaces, integral parts of the implementation
of the discursive process that is triggered and
managed by speakers and writers. The text
is made of referential spaces delimited or
constituted by instances of enunciation. This
means that every text is formed by more than
Figure 10: Illustration of ► one referential space. Thus reference (R) would
communication. emerge from the necessity and intention of
Source: Available at: both speaker/locutor and hearer/interlocutor
http://crioasas.blogspot.
com Em cache. Access:
to talk about a certain topic. This means that
February, 2012. they refer to each other in and by discourse.
Still, Benveniste (1974) points out that
“reference is an integral part of enunciation”. It
emerges from the possibility and mainly from
the necessity an interlocutor has to become co-locutor in an act, that is, to engage in a process of
referentiation and co-referentiation.
Though referred to as the voice of the locutor, the one who is either responsible or made
responsible for the production of this text exchanges roles with his interlocutor (you). Therefore,
a dialogue does not result only from the action of this locutor, but also from the interlocutor’s
actively participating in the process.
22
Utterance is speech, roughly a sentence as mentioned elsewhere in this text. All utterances Glossary
are really performative. This is the key assumption of speech act theory, which advocates that Turn-taking: The
by emitting an utterance language users perform one or more social acts called ‘speech acts’. manner in which
Speech act theory will be specifically approached a little ahead in this Unit. orderly conversation
Take a close look at Benveniste’s Formal Apparatus of Enunciation. normally takes place.
The moment when an
interlocutor’s turn to
speak comes. Example:
Source: grammar.about.com/
od/tz/g/turntakingterm.
◄Figure 11: Formal
htm. Wardle to Mr. Pickwick
Apparatus of in ThePickwick Papers by
Enunciation. Charles Dickens (1836)
Source: From the article
Quando Lula vira Lua:
um momento histórico,
uma capa da Veja.
1.5.2 Enunciates and utterances

◄ Figure 12: Mr. Bean:
Made 3 generations
The English comedian Rowan Atkinson (1955- ), known as Mr. of people laugh,
Bean, made three generations laugh without uttering a single word, without uttering a
single word.
that is, by using no utterances, by using only nonverbal devices. As
Source:www.facebook.
I mentioned previously, an utterance is speech, rough equivalent of com/kartik3e - 143k.
a sentence; in instant messages it is an oral sentence. Speech is the Access: June, 2010.
product of enunciation. Enunciates refer to sentences in texts either
oral or written.
Let us find out how enunciates and utterances operate. But
before discussing the next illustration and the next section about
text heterogeneity, it is well to make further considerations on
discourse and on discourse analysis contributors.
Discourse only exists within social relations. It is never individual but mediated by social
relations within groups such as the family, work, church, political parties, associations etc. The
individual believes he speaks for himself, that he inaugurates meaning, when, in fact in his
speech echoes many socially available speeches. Therefore, if I claimed I am a woman, poor, gay
and black, in these enunciates echo speeches socially available about being poor, a woman,
black or gay which try to minimize speeches that reveal resistance to the status quo. This is one
of the reasons why the content of some people’s speeches sometimes coincide. Fact is that they
access and articulate the same kind of speeches about being a woman, black, poor or gay.
Following this line of thought, my previous (pseudo)discourse about myself is mediated by
social speeches about being black, a woman and gay. Another example is: if a woman-teacher
claims that teaching was imposed to her by her mother, what this really means is that in a society
where to be a teacher generally involves suffering, working a lot, and having low salaries, she will
take this career only if she is forced to. Discourses are not individual but collective.
One contributor for studying the sort of discourse analysis as sustained previously is
Sociolinguistics, which reconnects language with society by investigating the language varieties
corresponding to differences in social, regional and economic status. These varieties differ not
just in sound patterns, but also in discourse patterns, depending especially on whether the
participants come from high or low social classes.
Another contributor for my previous analysis were the “deconstructing” concepts of
belief-systems, or generally held social values and assumptions introduced by postmodern
theories aiming at reviewing the analysis of texts, among which are included those of Jacques
23
Derrida (the coiner of the word “deconstruction”), Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, Jean-Francis
Lyotard, and Fredric Jameson. This brief listing of a few critical thinkers is neither exhaustive
nor judgmental; they are merely some famous names commonly encountered when you study
postmodern theories.
And yet, the purpose of Discourse Analysis is not to provide definite answers, but to
expand horizons and make us realize our own shortcomings and unacknowledged agendas and
motivations - as well as that of others. In short, critical analysis reveals what is going on behind
our backs and those of others and which determines our act.
Now let us analyze the next illustration. You are to read the enunciates on the top of the
picture.
Figure 13: Girl saying a

prayer.
Source: E-mail sent by
HelianeGramiscelli Ferreira
de Mello in August, 2010
‘God, please, make people send clothes to those poor naked young ladies whom I saw in
Dad’s Playboy magazine.’
The enunciator/interlocutor/subject, the girl, is praying to God, who is another subject
in discourse, as well as you, dear student, and me, the readers are also subjects in discourse.
The little girl is uttering utterances, she is using oral communication. Transcribed to paper, her
utterances become what DA calls enunciates/sentences that together form a text. Did you
understand?
Task
Answer this question:
Can you detect any
1.6 Language heterogeneity
other subjects, any
interference of social-
historical and religious As you have already realized, texts (and discourses) are not homogenous but
relations, in the heterogeneous entities because various different voices intervene and cooperate to form the
discourse of figure 9? intricate webs that we call texts, be them oral (speech) or written. Under such a point of view
there would be no neutral texts as a multiplicity of voices interfere and intermingle helping
constitute the subjects in discourse. I am referring to intertextuality. Let me go back in time a
little bit to make things clearer for you.
In very simple words, traditional analysis usually considers intertextuality as the explicit
or manifest presence of other discourses/authors in the text. Quotes are a good example of this
explicitness either in indented position or as an insertion in the flow of texts. Take a look at an
example in which the quote is indented:
‘In an interview in the Forum: Qualitative Social Research – FQS
(2001),Dominique Maingueneau, a French linguist explained that ‘discourse
analysis developed in France in the late sixties because the conditions were
favorable. Various factors came together: a scientific tradition, a school
practice and an intellectual climate […]’.
Now, watch an example of a quote inserted in the flow of the text: ‘According to Saussure’s
ideas language is […]’, in which the French linguist is explicitly quoted and named. Saussure’s
voice is allowed to interfere explicitly in the author’s text. Both forms of viewing intertextuality,
24
the presence of alterity/otherness, can be shown in the linguistic materiality by means of specific Glossary
linguistic indexes (quoted discourse, self-corrections, words with quotation marks etc.). Did Deixis – Term
you understand the traditional meaning of intertextuality? What would then be the modern or originated from Ancient
contemporary view of intertextuality? Greek meaning “display,
To Benveniste (1991) it is in and by the language that man becomes subject. He calls such demonstration, or
concept subjectivity (p. 284), term that the French linguist also describes “as the interlocutor’s reference”. It refers
to the phenomenon
capacity for instituting himself as subject by means of language” (1966, p. 259-260). Such where understanding
instituting is marked in the text by the presence of the pronoun I, or of deictic elements, or the meaning of certain
deixis. Benveniste (1966) ascribes the pronouns I and YOU the notion of persons, claiming that words and phrases in
the pronoun HE is a non-person (p: 277-278) since it is always only referred to but not engaged in an utterance requires
the dialog. HE is never the subject in interlocutions. Benveniste still describes the notions of time contextual information.
Words are deictic
and space built in and by the enunciation, here-now (specific space and given time), that is, the if their semantic
locutor’s space of reality. meaning is fixed but
On the notion of dialogue and subjectivity, the philosopher and semioticist Mikhail Bakhtin their denotational
contributes some fundamental works. He began his engagement with the theme through the meaning varies
work Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Art on the Russian (Fyodor) Dostoyevsky. In this critical essay depending on time
and/or place. Words or
Bakhtin introduces three important concepts for developing discourse analysis: phrases that require
1. A true representation of ‘polyphony’, that is, the plurality of voices in discourse, notion in contextual information
which each character represents a voice that speaks for an individual self distinct from others. to convey any
Polyphony is related to the concepts of unfinalizability and self-and-others since, in Bakhtin meaning; for example,
words, it is the unfinalizability of individuals that creates true polyphony and many versions of pronouns – are deictic.
The concepts of
identity too, I would add. deixis can apply to
2. The idea of the relationship between the self and others, or other groups as according spoken and written
to Bakhtin, every person is influenced by others in an inescapably intertwined way, and language, gestures,
consequently no voice can be said to be isolated. On this matter, in an interview, Bakhtin once and communication
explained that, media as well. Deixis is
believed to be a feature
In order to understand, it is immensely important for the person who (to some degree) of all
understands to be located outside the object of his or her creative natural languages. This
understanding—in time, in space, in culture. For one cannot even really is a great story. Some
see one’s own exterior and comprehend it as a whole, and no mirrors or examples of deixis are:
photographs can help; our real exterior can be seen and understood only by This is a great story
other people, because they are located outside us in space, and because they where “this” refers to
are others. (Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakhtin. Access in: May, an upcoming portion
2011). of the discourse, and in
That was an amazing
day, where “that”
As such, his philosophy greatly respected the influences of other voices on the self, not referstoapriorportionof
merely in terms of how a person comes to be, but also how a person thinks and sees himself thediscourse.
truthfully. (Available at: www.
3. And finally the unfinalizable self, since individually people are never finalized, completely en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
understood, known, or labeled. Bakhtin’s conception of unfinalizability respects the possibility Deixis. Access in June
2008).
that a person can always change, and that he is never fully revealed or fully known in the world
though it is possible to understand people and to treat them as if they were completely known.
This means that subjects and identities are in an-ever-ending process of construction. (Available
at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakhtin. Access in: May, 2011). In Unit 2, I will discuss some
notions of identity.
In the subsequent years, Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Art was translated into English and
published in the Western world. To this new version Bakhtin added a chapter on the concept
of carnival, a Pagan feast which Brazilians know quite well, and the book was published with
as lightly different title: Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Poetics. According to Bakhtin, carnival is
the context in which distinct individual voices are heard, flourish, emerge and interact. Carnival
incarnates the stereotype of having situations where regular conventions are broken or reversed
and then genuine dialogue becomes possible. The notion of a carnival was Bakhtin’s way of
describing Dostoevsky’s polyphonic style: at a same given time and space each individual
character is strongly defined, and the reader witnesses the critical influence of each character
upon the other. This means that other people’s voices are heard by each individual, and each
inescapably shapes the character of the other.
Still, when approaching the relations of subjectivity and polyphony, Benveniste refers
to reference – ‘the fact that we are always referring to others or to each other’ -, (1991, p. 84)
and claims that it “is not something ready, or finished, in the linguistic structures, but co-built
in and by discourse”. The conclusion is that Benveniste and Bakhtin's ideas somehow converge:
25
inescapably meaning is constructed dialogically and polyphonically during interaction, and

obviously through language.
To finish the row of linguists aproaching discoursive and textual hetereogeneity whose
investigations will help you understand intertextuality/interdiscursivity better, I mention one last
but not least important work by Authier-Revuz (1982):‘Manifest heterogeneity, and constitutive
heterogeneity: elements for the approach of the other in discourse.’ (from the French:
Hétérogenéité montrée et hétérogéneité constitutive; éléments pour une approche de láutre dans le
discours). In this work the French linguist approaches the presence of the Other – psychoanalytic
or discursive – in the discourse of the “Self”, a thesis largely accepted in the linguistic studies
which seek for understanding the discursive functioning of language. According to Authier-
Revuz, it is possible to detect two forms of Otherness’presence (Alterity) in discourse:
constitutive language heterogeneity and the manifest heterogeneity in language.
The first one,though inaccessible through visible marks in the intrincate web of discourse,
points towards the constitutive presence of a primary discourse within a secondary discourse.
In the second one, Alterity can be shown in the linguistic materiality drawing upon specific
linguistic indexes (quoted discourse, self-corrections, words with quotation marks etc.). She is
referring to the traditional notion of textuality. In simple words, Authier-Revuz worked on the
notion that heterogenity of texts may be revealed clearly, explicitly or be a constitutive part
of the text ordiscourse. In this case, her investigation traces enunciative heterogeneity in the
discursive practices aiming at a contribution to the enrichment of this area of discursive studies,
as well as a better understanding of the social communication phenomenon.
Departing from the language dialogic concept formulated by Bakhtin (1984) to whom
discourse constitutively dialogs with a discourse of an Other and also with the receptor I in
discourse, Authier-Revuzgives priority to the notion of constitutive language heterogeneity
and contrasts it to the bakhtinian concept of dialogism. This leads us to infer that the notion of
subjectivity cannot be centered on one single ego while unique entity or on an all-powerful-
source of its word, but on a subject that is divisible as an atom, a particle of a social-historical
constructed whole, where it interacts with other discourses of which it appropriates or positions
(or is positioned) to elaborate its discourse.
Grounded on such principles, notions and topics, you are now able to start dealing with the
content in the next subsection.
1.6.1 Polyphony and Interdiscursivity: the subjects of/in discourse.
When I speak I start a discursive operation and institute myself as enunciator (I) in an
instance of enunciation –discourse. Any verbal text constitutes an instance of basic enunciation,
known as the base plan, that is, the instance of Enunciation marked by the introduction of my
voice, (pronoun) I, the first enunciator. The first enunciation prepares the introduction of other
instances of enunciation, a basic condition to trigger the discursive process. Such instances
CLUE of enunciation correspond to other voices articulating among themselves or in competition
Dicendi verbs – From with each other. The presence of such voices, i.e., other discourses, is an aspect that evidences
Latin refer to verbs language heterogeneity. It is text heterogeneity in discourse that triggers referentiation. These
of saying something
such as: declare, tell,
various instances of enunciation within the first instance of enunciation are marked by the
speak, ask, answer, dicendi verbs, by the terms of elocution, parentheses, inverted commas, and dashes etc., which
reply, respond, claim, are markers of the presence of other voices in discourse.
explain etc. The English linguist Norman Fairclough (1989) also refers to the multiplicity of voices as
heterogeneity and Bhaktin, as I have discussed, calls it polyphony, multivoicing -, I reiterate, the
fact that the text contains traces of other (people’s) texts/discourses. This is also referred to as
intertextuality in the modern, not traditional, sense of the term.
According to Bakhtin (1991), discourse does not emerge from a debate with the other,
therefore it is not a mere space for allowing the inclusion of someone else’s discourse, but it is
dominated by interdiscourse. Because of that Bakhtin says that “words are always other people’s
words”, that is, discourse is always originated from the discourse of others. This is the meaning
modernity ascribes to intertextuality today, also understood as interdiscursivity, expression
coined by Michel Pêcheux. What is it?
Michel Pêcheux (1997), who was the major discourse theorist of the 1970s, gave first priority
to interdiscourse: the fact that in almost any text, there appears the interference of different
discourses which may be in accordance or in competition with each other. Also, every text
26
contains traces of other texts and this is usually referred to as intertextuality under the modern
view of the term. Interdiscursivity deals with the discursive formations (DFs). Let me clarify the
notion of DFs.
From the 1970s, approaches about the social production of meaning were developed
especially in France, but differently from the previous ones, as those brought to light new
questionings such as ‘what role do conditions play in the production of meaning? In other
words, is meaning construction built upon the infra-structure or is it simply manifested in the
super-structure? Still, to what extent a theory of meaning production has to be associated to the
processes of meaning production?
Mari (2008) claims that, motivated by a review on the Marxist theory (concentrated
mainly in the broad discussion on ideology), researchers as Foucault (discursive formations Glossary
(DFs), Pêcheux (DA), Véron (meaning production), and others as Rossi-Landi (linguistic market) Pragmatics: relation
and Latouche (value theory) contributed effectively this discussion because of the nature of of the user with
the categories selected to discuss it. One of the principles of the theme in question is the one language, the usual
which advocates that there is a close relation, indeed a commitment, between language and the and cultural use of
everyday language.
social dimension in an organic and constitutive way, which would imply to consider the social
dimension far beyond a mere correlation between one factor and the other, tore-think how the
social dimension advances over the linguistic one in the discursive practices, and how language
adopts them. The studies on language and social dimensions have improved a lot lately as many
of the investigations were developed mainly because pragmatics was taken into account, in
language analysis.
Following this line of thought, the social dimension of enunciation considers language as a
principle of social sharing among subjects. Moreover, if we consider that meaning is produced
from socio-historical and pre-determined conditions, it is necessary to specify how that
determination occurs in the great part of the social discourses we know. This, according to Mari
(2008), would imply the conclusion that:
a) No discourse is necessarily individual as there will always be traits of representations
disseminated by the collective-social-historical dimensions.
b) Discourses are not essentially universal for there will always be traits characterizing them
as products of specific conditions locally detectable.
1.6.2 Social, Ideological and discursive formations (DFs)
Preliminaries
Cited in Mari(1999), Haroche, Henry and Pêcheux demonstrate the definite presence of a
social dimension in language production through tree levels of configuration:
a) The general one represented by the social formation characterized by the way of
production that prevails, and the relation among classes that compose it.
b) The intermediary level represented by the ideological formations “[...] a force which
opposes other forces inside the ideological conjuncture characteristic of a social formation in a
given time [...]”;
c) The historical level along which man in society builds his meanings interactively with
other subjects.
The result of those configurations are the social formations (SF) and the ideological
formations (IF), the latter, according to the authors mentioned, conceived as “the ideological
formations that, with such definitions, necessarily carry one of their components or a sequence
of related discursive formations(DF)[...]‘ which determine what may and must be said [...], from
a certain position and in a given situation...”.Meaning thus conceived emerges as the result of
ideological configurations intimately associated to a specific ideological formation which is
associated to a broader social formation, i.e., if meaning construction is originated from what
may or must be said, we can thus here and now perceive a more precise outline of what meaning
represents: the product of socio-historical configurations of an individual.
In sum, meaning is built in and by History in social interaction and in cooperation with one
another and is based upon values (moral, social, intellectual, ideological, political, economic,
cultural, religious etc.) exerted and inculcated on the individuals, and usually cemented on
knowledge subjects acquire, learn, hear and live throughout life.
I think this is a relevant trajectory about meaning (and sense) to be considered when
analyzing discourses. At the same time, that path constitutes a fundamental concept for
27
Glossary the discussion on categories of analysis and empirical evaluation of the diverse forms of its
emergence from texts/discourses. Therefore what really matters here and now in this course
Empirical: briefly
speaking, the book is that you, dear students, understand that meanings are constructed, as everything else in
knowledge learned life, socially, historically and culturally once they are products not only of the history of collective
through observation. construction, that departs from the subjects emerging needs, but also of interaction with others.
I believe you are now ready to understand the social, ideological and discursive formations
better.
The concept of discursive formation (DF) was introduced by Foucault (1970) and later re-
elaborated by Pêcheux (1975) inside for the corpus of DA. On referring to the FDs, in his work
‘The Archaeology of Knowledge’, Foucault tried to deal with traditional units such as theory,
ideology and science to designate the set of enunciates associated with a same system of rules
historically determined, thus characterizing the FD in terms of dispersion, rareness and split unit
etc., at the same time.
On his turn, Pêcheux (1997) introduces ideology in DA. Departing from the althusserian
and Marxist thoughts, he proposes that every ‘social formation’, characterized by the relation
between social classes reveals the existence of ‘political and ideological positions’ individuals
take ‘that are organized in formations which maintain among themselves relations of
antagonism, alliance or domination’ (PÊCHEUX, 1997, p. 297). Therefore, his concept of FD
occupies a fundamental space in DA, that of an articulator between language and discourse.
This notion of DF regulates references about the subject interpellations as a discourse
subject. Therefore, DF allows for conceiving that speakers within a given socio-historical context
may agree or not about the meaning they will give to words, “to speak differently but speaking
the same language”. In this sense, an FD is not only one language for all or for each language but
various languages in only one. An FD is heterogeneous and as such characterized as a divided
unit whose constitutive principle is contradiction. About this matter, Foucault (1969, p.186)
claimed that an FD works in the razor edge of discourse as a principle of its historicity.
Although DF designates what must and may be said’, the effects of the class ideological
contradictions are recoverable within the ‘unit’ of the several discourse sets. Therefore DA must
work its object – discourse –relating language and history trying to find markers of ideological
contradictions in the linguistic structures.
It is for these reasons that Foucault (1986, p.187), claims that ‘to analyze discourse is to make
contradictions disappear and re-appear: it is to show the game they [individuals] play with each
others; it is to demonstrate how they can express them, give them a solid format, or an escaping
appearance.’ It follows that he understands DF as ‘space of multiple dimensions’ in which they
operate in dual opposition like unit-diversity and coherence/heterogeneity whose levels and
roles must be shown not with the aim of leveling them as general forms of thought, but of
defining ‘the point in which they constitute themselves, define the form they take, the relations
they share and the domain they command’ (FOUCAULT, 1986, p.192).
Therefore, DFs result from both ideological and social formations that enable dissimulating
meaning, which is material and contradictory objectivity of interdiscourse. The theories of that
time aimed to study the way in which ideology was invested by language, then seen as relatively
autonomous from “infrastructure” and considered in its “materiality” not as a simple vehicle for
representations previously elaborated.
On its turn, Maingueneau (1984) claims that the definition of meaning in “discourse
coincides with the definition of the relations between discourse and the other subjects present
in discourse”. (1984, pg. 30-31). All this serves to assure the presence of dialogism - fundamental
feature of discourse-, that is, in discourse it is impossible to dissociate interaction from
interdiscursive functioning. (1984, p. 30-31). Humans are dialogic in nature.
Corroborating Benveniste and Bakhtin’s ideas discussed previously, discourses only exist
within social relations. They are never individual but mediated by social relations within groups
such as the family, work, church etc. Even if the individual believes he speaks for himself, that
he is inaugurating meaning, his speech echoes many speeches socially available. Therefore,
many other voices are present in his (inter)discourse: those of the social, religious, political and
historical relations to mention only a few. Meanings are not individually but collectively built. Did
you, my friends, understand the concept of interdiscursivity?
Let us now do some exercises about aspects we have been discussing so far.
28
Consolidation exercise:
Let us analyze and discuss the texts below and answer the questions.
Considering that we have discussed linguistic and discursive analysis, what sort of analysis
was proposed for the enunciates in signs 1 and 2? Why?
SIGN1-Please; use the toilet, not the POOL.

Verb in the imperative mood, affirmative form (use); adverb of negation (not); the word THE
is a definite article; toilet and pool are nouns. Two synonyms for toilet could be: restroom and,
water closet. It means that Club members ought not to use the pool as a toilet.
Now answer: What type of analysis was done?

Answer: ______________________________________________________________________________________
SIGN 2-Pool for members only.

The sign was posted by the administration of a Club (subject-locutor) and is addressed to its
members and guests (subjects-interlocutors). It means that if you are not a member of the club,
you are forbidden to use the pool. The intention of the author-locutor-message is: to prohibit
people other than the Club members to use the pool.
Now answer: What type analysis was done?

Answer: ______________________________________________________________________________________
In isolation each sign convey its own different meaning. Now, let us see how discourse
operates if the signs are taken together, as a single sign/discourse. As such they make you go
back and revise your previous interpretation of the first sentence after you’ve read the second.
PLEASE, USE THE TOILET, NOT THE POOL. POOL FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
Taken together the enunciates lead to other meanings. What are they?
Task: Discuss the issue with your tutor and then answer: What is the meaning in the
discourse now?
Now, I am to read and analyze this text in the light of another theory.
Task
Discuss with
your tutor the
heterogeneity/
interdiscursivity
in this text. How
many subjects are
there in the cartoon
discourse?
◄ Figure 14: Illustration of

a humoristic cartoon.
Source: On top of the
cartoon. Access in March,
2008.
29
The theme and genre in the text is humor. The author’ intention is to produce humor
To Learn More
and provoke laughter. To achieve his goal, he uses the locutionary acts, that is, the linguistic
Austin’s theory is structures: ‘That’s weird. All this fortune cookie says is “Look out!” What would have been his
described in “How to
do things with words”
interlocutor’s (probably his wife) reaction to his enunciates? What effect(s) have the enunciates
translated to Portuguese caused on her? Did she laugh, smiled, felt pity on him, or what? How many subjects can be
as Quando Dizer é Fazer. detected in this discourse?
It is interesting to notice The previous analysis was done according to some aspects of the pragmatic Speech Acts
that the translation Theory. Let me clarify these statements. In the cartoon, the author’s intention is the Illocutionary
says much more than
the original title in
Act. The structures “That’s weird. All this fortune cookie says is “Look out!” are the Locutionary
that the translation Acts. And the effect the enunciates may cause is called Perlocutionary Act. These acts are dealt
makes it explicit that with in The Theory of Speech Acts by John Langshaw Austin (1962, research followed by Searle’s
to SAY something (1995) studies.
is to DO(perform) After these preliminaries, let us briefly, but somehow consistently, deal with the Speech Act
something), that is, by
emitting an utterance
Theory (AUSTIN, 1962).
language users perform Roughly speaking, I remind you that enunciation refers to all the circumstances involving
one or more social ACTS the making of an utterance and that utterance is speech. All utterances are really performative,
called ‘speech acts’. that is, they enact an action. This is the key assumption of the Speech Acts Theory.
ASPEECH ACT is, therefore, an ACTION that a speaker/locutor performs in saying an
utterance or writing/producing a sentence. Let us enter the world of the pragmatic Speech Act
Theory.
CLUE
Language functions -
refer to the linguistic
code functions and
1.7 Speech Act Theory
as such should not be
confounded with any First of all, let me make it clear that speech act analysis asks NOT WHAT FORM the utterance
other function. Problem takes but what it DOES. For example, on saying “I now pronounce you man and wife” enacts a
is that in English the marriage. Therefore, studying speech acts such as complimenting allows discourse analysts to
word language serves ask what counts as a compliment, who gives compliments to whom, and what other function
two purposes: to
denote the linguistic
they can serve. In this line of analysis linguists have observed, for example, that women are more
code (grammar, likely to give and to get compliments than men.
syntax, semantics, In his book How to do things with words, Austin (1962) describes his speech act theory
phonology etc) and and claims that when one utters a sentence he performs an action, he does something with his
that entity which speech act. In the enunciates ‘I nominate John Burst President of the company’; ‘I sentence you
includes all forms
of communication
to ten years imprisonment’; ‘I promise to pay you back’, the actions that the sentence describes
verbal or nonverbal. (nominating, sentencing, promising) is performed by the sentence itself; the speech is the act.
In Portuguese we use This is performed by means of language
linguagem for this functions as the ones cited; other examples
general entity and of language functions would be: defining,
língua for the linguistic
code. Because of that
writing, reading, counseling, warning,
we (almost) have cancelling, advising, promising etc., actions
no problems with through which you DO/PERFORM something.
distinguishing both It is thus very close the relation between
terms. Thus, we are discourse and action.
able to understand that
funções da linguagem
Take a look at the famous linguist and
(phatic, denotative, sociologist John Austin in the photo attached.
connotative, and However, there are cultural differences
emotive, among about functions. In India, for example, local
others.) are one thing politeness as to compliments may mean
and funções da língua
(defining, advising,
demanding that if you are carrying an item-
declaring, promising present and someone compliments you,
etc.) something else. you should offer to give the item as a gift,
so complimenting (function) can be a way
Figure 15: John ► of asking for (doing) things. It is known
Langshaw Austin was an the case of an Indian woman who had just
English philosopher of
language (1911–1960). met her American daughter-in-law and was
Source: http://www.face- shocked to hear her praise her beautiful saris.
book.com/pages/John-Lan “What kind of girl did he marry? She wants
gshawAustin/156248625528
30
?sk=photos
everything!” She commented. By comparing how people in different cultures use language,
discourse analysts hope to make a contribution also to improving cross-cultural understanding.
As I have explained in this section, a speech act is an action that a locutor/speaker performs
when making an utterance or in saying/producing/writing a sentence such as:
• describing something: “It is snowing.”
• asking a question: “Is it snowing?”
• making a request or order: “Could you pass the salt?”, “Drop your weapon or I’ll shoot you!”
• making a promise: “I promise I’ll love you for good.”
As you can deduce, a speech act is obviously, involved with enunciation and utterances.
Still, according to Austin (1962), language, action, knowledge and situation are interrelated
though not the same thing, but situation and language have a perfect marriage, he claims. For
Malinowski (1920; 1923) language and action have to do with the range of functions language
can serve, those of promising, requiring, demanding, asking, asserting, describing, impressing,
intimidating, arguing, persuading, betting, swearing, protesting, begging and the like. Some
of them are acquired early in childhood, others may be rather complex thus being acquired as
communicative competence only later in adulthood.
Let us now see other aspects considered in the discourse analysis of texts.
◄ Figure 16: People

standing in a line of
the Court Room.
Source: http://www.ro-
bertcrumbcartoons.com/
lawyer_cartoon36.htm.
Access: June, 2009.
For the production of this cartoon both verbal and nonverbal languages were used. Notice
that in the sign the linguistic structures by themselves may not convey meaning for someone
who is not aware of some of the aspects of the Anglo-American culture. You have already
contacted this cartoon and know that the sign is directed to guests entering an American Court
room and means ‘do not enter the room without permission or assistance’. So, it is pragmatics
that gives you this information, not the linguistic code. Because of that culture and pragmatics,
must be considered when doing DA as they play an important role for the comprehension of the
text. Did you understand?
Who are the subjects in discourse? They are: the three guests in line, the author of the
cartoon, the reader and the empiricist subject, i.e., your world-knowledge –in this case the
Anglo-American culture – that helps you interpret and analyze discourse. You must keep
always in mind that multivoicing, i. e., multiple voices in discourse, is fundamental for analyzing
discourses. The effect of the sign over people in the line is surprise as they did not understand its
meaning. You can infer the perlocutionary act by looking at their faces.
Let us now concentrate effectively on the pragmatic Speech Acts.
31
1.7.1 Intentionality in discourse: Locutionary, Illocutionary, and

Perlocutionary acts
What would be the author’s intention in presenting the cartoon in figure 10? It is to provoke
surprise and a certain anguish in his interlocutors for understanding the linguistic code but
not the discourse/message. What would have been the effect caused by the message on us,
interlocutors in the cartoon discourse, we, the readers? My friends, I am talking about:
• The author’s intentionality is the illocutionary speech act;

• The linguistic structures he makes use of, are the locutionary speech acts,
• The effect caused on interlocutors and readers (us) is the perlocutionary speech act.
Austin identifies three distinct levels of action beyond the act of utterance itself. He
distinguishes the act of saying something, what one does in saying it, and what one does by
saying it, and dubs these the ‘locutionary’, the ‘illocutionary’ and the ‘perlocutionary’ acts,
respectively.
Suppose, for example, that a bartender utters the words, ‘The bar (he is tending) will
be closed in five minutes’. He is performing the locutionary act of saying that the bar will be
closed in five minutes (from the time of utterance), and what is said is reported by indirect
quotation (notice that what the bartender is saying, the content of his locutionary act, is not
fully materialized in the words he is using, for they do not specify the bar (place) in question
or the time of the utterance). In saying this, the bartender is performing the illocutionary act
(intentionality) of informing the patrons/clients of the bar’s imminent closing and perhaps also
the act of urging them to order a last drink or finish the one they are having. Whereas the goal
of those illocutionary acts is the understanding on the part of the audience (interlocutors),
perlocutionary acts are performed with the intention of producing a further effect. The
bartender intends to be performing the perlocutionary acts of causing the patrons to believe
that the bar is about to close thus forcing them to order one last drink. He performs all these
speech acts, at the three mentioned levels, just by uttering certain words.
Summing up, the speech acts are:
a. Locutionary act (act of saying) - the uttering of words; the social act one makes by using
language structures (grammar, syntax and lexicon). Example: He is talking.
b. illocutionary act (what one does in saying) – a particular intention in making the
utterance. Example: He is talking. The locutor’s intention can be to state a fact, show surprise (if
the person is dumb), and to ask for silence.
c. Perlocutionary act (what one does by saying) - the production of a particular effect on
the addressee/interlocutor. Example: He is talking. The effect can be: surprise, confirming, and
showing disgust for not being able to hear…
The classification of the speech acts (locutions, illocutions and perlocutions) serve to
demonstrate how meanings are constructed in the intersubjective relations which are marked by
the context of the interactive event and materialized in language.
Consolidation Exercises:
Read and analyze the sentences and texts below then

A) Discuss enunciation and analyze enunciates.
B) Identify the Locutionary act (the linguistic strategies).
C) Identify the illocutionary act (the enunciator’s/ locutor’s intention).
D) Identify the Perlocutionary act (the effect provoked).
1. Í, hereby, proclaim: Arthur is King´.

A) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
B) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
C) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
D) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
32
2. Don’t walk out of me now, Lily.

A) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
B) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
C) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
D) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Sharon was very happy when she met Joan. She said:
When he told me that he loved me I almost fainted.
A) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
B) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
C) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
D) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
4. “I resign, my Lady Queen”.

A) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
B) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
C) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
D) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
Let us now discuss briefly what Jürgen Habermas (1929 -), a German sociologist and
philosopher in the tradition of critical theory and pragmatism, has to say about the speech acts
and the communicative action.
Highly influenced by the American language-action theory, pragmatism and even post-
structuralism, many of the central tenets of Habermas’ thought remain broadly Marxist in
nature. His social theory goes beyond the goals of human emancipation, but maintains an
inclusive Universalist moral framework, which rests on the argument called universal pragmatics
- that all speech acts have an inherent telos (from Greek meaning “end”) —, the aim of mutual
understanding, and that humans possess the communicative competence to bring about such
understanding.
Habermas’ framework is based upon various theoreticians’ work on speech-act and
communicative action such as: Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy, Austin and Searle’s speech acts
theory, George Herbert Mead’s sociological theory of the interactional constitution of mind and
self, the theories of moral development of Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg, and the discourse
on ethics of his Heidelberg colleague Karl-Otto Apel. He is identified as one of the leading
intellectuals of the present.
When approaching Austin’s speech act theory, Habermas (1999, p.95) claims that a speech
act is a moment where the subject reveals his intentions. He states that “[...] any speech act,
through which a speaker communicates something to his interlocutor places the linguistic
expression in face of three references: the one with the speaker, with the listener and with the
world”. In this way, speech acts uttered in ordinary communicational situations are the bases for
Habermas theory of communicative action, where the communicative process is always in search
of comprehension.
The communicative action, in Habermas words, is grounded on a cooperative process
of interpretation in which subjects refer themselves to something in the objective, social and
subjective worlds, even if in their form of expression they only thematically focus on one of the
three elements. Corroborating Pêcheux, Benveniste and Bakhtin’s thoughts, the three worlds
formulated by the German sociologist compose the scenario where human intersubjectivity
operates.
Because of that, for Habermas (1999), language is an articulating element and the reason
why he speaks of subjective world in opposition to the subjective and social worlds. It follows
that one can say that language enables the speaker not only to utter representative sentences
(referring to the objective world) but also to the appellative ones (referring to the social world,)
that aim at emitting expressive requests (referring to the subjective world), and divulgate
personal known experiences.
Supported by the theory of speech acts, Habermas developed the notion of social action, or
more precisely saying, social interaction by means of linguistic communication, communicative
action as he coined the expression. In the next Unit, by approaching CDA theory and Norman
Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) theory this theme will be dealt with more
effectively.
33
1.8 References
AUSTIN, John Langshaw. How to do things with words. Oxford, England: Ed. J. O. Urmson.
Clarendon, 1962.
BAKHTIN, M. M. Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem: problemas fundamentais do método

sociológico na ciência da linguagem. 2. ed. São Paulo: HUCITEC, 1982.
BAKHTIN.M.Mikhail. Problems of Dosto evsky’s Poetics. Edited and translated by Caryl

Emerson. Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press. (1984).
BENVENISTE Émile. Da subjetividade na linguagem: problemas de Lingüística Geral I. 3. ed. São

Paulo: Ponte, 1991.
BENVENISTE, Émile. Problemas de linguística geral. v I e II. Trad.: Maria da Glória Novak e Maria
Luisa Neri. 4. ed. Campinas, SP: Pontes, 1995.
CASTRO, M. C. G. de; MAGALHÃES, Helena M. G.; TEIXEIRA, Renata A. Quando Lula vira Lua:
um momento histórico, uma capa da Veja. Article written for the discipline Discourse Analysis
during the PhD course, 2007.
CRYSTAL, D. A Dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 2nd edition. New York: Basil 2000 “Second
Language Error in a Cognitive Psycholinguistic Perspective”, in:
DAKOWSKA, Maria. “Second Language Error in a Cognitive Psycholinguistic Perspective”, in: M.

Dakowska (ed.) English in the Modern World. Festschrift for HartmutBreitkreuz on the Occasion
of his 60th Birthday. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 23-48, 2000.
FAIRCLOUGH, Norman. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.
___________. Language and Power. London: Longman. 1989.
___________.Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. London and New York:
Longman, 1995.
FOUCAULT, M. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Trans. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. 1969.
FOUCAULT, Michel. A ordem do discurso. São Paulo: Loyola, 1970.
FOUCAULT, Michel. Arqueologia do saber. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 1986.
HABERMAS, J. Teoria de La acción comunicativa (I e II). Buenos Aires: Taurus, 1999.
MAINGUENEAU, Dominique. Gêneses du discours. Bruxelles. Pierre Mardaga,1984
MALINOWSKI, B. (1920). Classificatory particles in the language of Kiriwina. Bulletin of the

school of Oriental studies, London institution, Vol. I, Part IV: 33-78.
_______________. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C.K. Ogden; I.A. Richards.
The meaning of meaning.Supplement I.296-336. Kegan Paul. 1923.
PÊCHEUX, Michel. Análise do Discurso: três épocas. In: GADET F.; HAK, T. (Orgs.) Por uma análise
automática do Discurso: uma introdução à obra de Michel Pêcheux. Trad. de Eni P. Orlandi.
Campinas: Unicamp, 1997, p 61-151.
PÊCHEUX, A propósito da Análise do Automática do Discurso: atualizações e perspectivas. In:

GADET, F.; HAK, T. (Orgs.). Por uma análise automática do discurso: uma introdução à obra de
Michel Pêcheux. Campinas, SP: Editora da UNICAMP, 1975.
PÊCHEUX, Michel. O discurso: estrutura ou acontecimento. 2. ed. Campinas (SP): Pontes, 1997.
SEARLE, John Rogers. Intencionalidade. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 1995.
www.eamonfulcher.com/discoureanalysis.html-
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deixis.
34 www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discourse.
UNIT 2
Who is scared of Discourse
Analysis?
◄ Figure 17: Woman

scared of something.
Source: www.shutterstock.
com/s/fear/search.html.
Access in: February, 2012.
In this Unit, I dedicate many pages to proposing effective discourse analysis of diverse
social texts. However, as there is no sort of analysis which could resist argumentation without
the use of theories, from time to time, and in-between analysis, I will return to some of them. I
will discuss Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), because he mostly focused on
ideology, social and work relations and how individuals react in face of the distinct situations in
which inculcation of symbolic values, oppression and repression are in course.
Firstly, let us provide some argumentation in favor and against the inclusion of DA in the
curricula of courses other than the university ones.
2.1 Why discourse analysis?

It seems to be a general consensus among teachers and students that many difficulties are
to be faced by anyone who attempts to do DA. I understand that and this is the reason why
in Unit 1 I approached and explained some expressions and words commonly used in DA’s
terminology. Now I will try to justify and discuss with you on how and why you should study to
do DA.
First of all, DA will help you during your classes but most of all it will open your minds
to understand and analyze language properly. By doing DA you will definitely realize that
language works and operates beyond the level of the sentences, i.e., grammar, semantics and
syntax. DA will lead you to find out what is in-between lines in texts, that is, beyond the level of
the linguistic structures. It will help you detect the various subjects present in discourse and in
what ways they interfere and intertwine to produce speech and reveal knowledge, education,
social relations, ideology and identities, but mostly to show how citizens are shaped to promote
35
changes and transform society.
As an interdisciplinary approach DA will facilitate your work both as a teacher and a student
since it allows for the involvement of History, technology, sociology, philosophy, science,
anthropology and languages, among others, grounding the idea that humans must be formed
as wholes. DA brings conscience of what is going on in the world in terms of the encyclopedic,
technological and scientific knowledge. With such credentials, in Morin’s (2000) words, DA will
contribute to form an autonomous, free and holistic man.
To study the relations between language, knowledge, action, and situation may suggest
that discourse analysis is a hard task to do but it is not. It follows that meaning cannot be
restricted to logic issues as some linguists thought it could. It implies different universes of
beliefs, wishes or assumptions. You have to be attentive to all the relations among those
categories.
Discourse analysis is a way of understanding social interactions. When doing DA, the
researcher acknowledges his own bias and position on the issue, that is, he uses reflexivity. The
aims of research range from understanding power relationships in society in order to bring about
change; appearance and the way it can shape identity (-ies) to arise interest in interaction or
conversation simply for its own sake. Research starts with a question (and not a hypothesis in the
formal sense) aimed at a theoretical position. A conversation or an excerpt of a text is transcribed
and then deconstructed. This involves attempting to identify features in the text, such as
the multiple discourses intervening in the text. Discourses are a particular theme in the text,
especially those relating to identities, for example, a statement that reiterates some subject’s
view, beliefs, desires or claim, and those associated to men’s friendships, family relations, racism
and gender conflicts, motherhood and fatherhood in discourse, and so on. For all these reasons
you should work with discourse analysis.
2.2 How to do discourse analysis?

Firstly you, obviously, have to read materials, orientational theories on this approach to
have a better understanding of the correct procedures. However, for practice purposes I can only
list some procedures and aspects I usually focus on when analyzing discourse such as: themes,
ideas, thoughts, messages, humor, subjects in discourse (interdiscourse), intentionality (speech
acts), vocational, moral, ethical, sexual and religious values and orientations, identity(ies), power,
ideologies, politics, philosophy and social-historical relations.
And yet, though there is some discussion on the reliability and validity of the method, one
thing has to be clarified: discourse analysis is ‘text intensive’ and as such limited space is left to
cover other aspects.
Let me briefly consider some other aspects to be observed when doing discourse analysis.
Pay close attention to:
Interaction - language is action in interaction and different factors interact to establish the
acceptability or appropriateness of utterances used in various social contexts.
Knowledge - the rhetorical functions which the utterance may be serving in an argument
or casual social conversation; it requires knowledge of what speech act is being performed and
in what speech event. Such complexity in defining appropriateness or acceptability led many
linguists to try to restrict their judgments to grammaticality or to semantic judgments, so to
speak, of paraphrases, synonymy, contradiction, and the like.
Meaning and indirection conditions are involved when speakers can say one thing and
mean another. Hearers and speakers, nevertheless, try to make sense out of whatever they hear.
So, however odd the utterances, hearers will do their utmost to grasp the sense of the language
they hear. This principle is relevant and generally used in advertising and political manifestos
and speeches. DA has also to do with sociolinguistics and culture. Notwithstanding, discourse
analysis deals with a confusing ambiguous terminology, I must admit, which must be, by all
means, explained and exemplified. I hope to have provided you with the necessary definitions,
explanations and examples in this course book.
36
Truth and falsity

Bakhtin (1984) delineated briefly the
polyphonic concept of truth by criticizing the
◄ Figure 18: Russian
assumption that, if two people disagree, at least philosopher and
one of them must be in error thus challenging semioticist Mikhail
philosophers for whom plurality of minds is Bakhtin (1895-1975).
accidental and superfluous. For the Russian Source: Available at: http://
semioticist truth is not a statement, a sentence en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Bakhtin. Author: Unknown
or a phrase but a number of mutually addressed, Access in: May, 2010.
contradictory and logically inconsistent statements.
Polyphonic truth cannot be kept within a single
mind, or expressed by “a single mouth”. It requires
many simultaneous voices. However, Bakhtin does
not want to say that many voices carry partial truths
that complement each other because a number
of different voices do not make the truth if simply
“averaged” or “synthesized”. He wants to say that it is
mutual addressivity, engagement and commitment
to the context of a real-life event that distinguishes
truth from untruth. (Available at:http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakhtin).
Much of the fascination of DA derives from the realization that the boundaries of linguistics
are being redrawn. From DA advent on, there is no returning to the patterns of rigor and
explanation set by structural linguistics created by Saussure, Bloomfield and Chomsky.
When facing DA practice, keep always in mind that a discourse analyst is mainly concerned with:
(1) Language use beyond the boundaries of a sentence or utterance.
(2) The interrelationships between language, society and pragmatics.
(3) The interactive or dialogic properties of everyday communication.
Now, to do discourse analysis you must also, dear students, get in touch with some final
additional information on text, speech and discourse.
2.3 Additional information on

discourse, text, speech and
language
Again, I remind you that the role of DA is to investigate and analyze discourse as a space
to where converge questions inherent to language, history, society and the subject. Orlandi’s
(2005, p.15), concept of discourse evokes the “idea of, trajectory, way, path, of running through,
of movement. Discourse is, therefore, word in action, language practice”. Such discursive mobility
allows language to decide about communicating or not as the triad language, subjects and
meanings in a multiple range of effects sometimes unpredictable.
In sum and roughly speaking, DA refers to attempts to study the organization of language
above the level of sentences or clauses in a text. It follows that discourse analysis is also,
and mainly, concerned with language in use/action in social contexts, and in particular with
interaction or dialogue between speakers.
As language reflects both the social structure and its intrinsic component I conclude that
speech is not a representational activity, but act through which the order of things, the social
relations and the subjects maybe changed in order to transform the world. On commenting
these aspects, Pêcheux (1997, p. 69) defines speech as the act that “represents the way through
which each individual uses language, the unique manner by means of which each speaker
expresses his freedom by announcing what will ‘never be heard twice’.
37
According to Pêcheux (1997), language is not transparent, and never finished. However,
even in its incompleteness it reveals itself as an action over itself, over the others, the situations
and the world as a process, as discourse, as enunciation, as a discursive process, that is, as a
social interactive activity. Following this line of thought, “text” or/and “enunciate” are understood
as a product, a result of the discursive activity, one of the constitutive factors of the discursive
process.
On thinking of the social spaces and interactions as instances from which discourses
emerge, it is plausible to remind you of Orlandi’s (2005) concepts about discourse: ‘meaning
effects among interlocutors’ (p.21), ‘space where language and ideology operate’(p.38). The
meeting point of ideology and language is based upon Althusser’s comparative studies which
Pêcheux would later adopt. The former concentrated in the analysis of language and ideology,
whereas the latter focused his work on the analysis of the relations between subject and
ideology. The subject of DA emerges from the notions discussed by Pêcheux (1997) on both
the subjects of language and ideology whose ideological subjection is the condition for his
becoming able, among other things, to produce and interprete meanings.
Ideological production as well as its dissemination is exerted on by the ideological state
apparatuses (ALTHUSSER, 1974) among which the school system is included. On commenting
this assertion, Bolognini (2007) postulates that institutions are places in which the various
enunciates uttered from the various social positions/subject encounter. [...] Such encounter gives
birth to confronts and conflicts, because the relation between the symbolic and the material
[values] and the meaning effects are defined by history and related to the subject [social]
position’ (p.77).
It is also under this view point that I analyze the enunciates of some texts in this course
book, for the subjects and individuals reveal not only their distinct subject positions, but also
the meaning they give to various different themes and aspects involved in the texts where they
perform the leading roles and through which they reveal the multiplicity of images they have of
themselves and that emerge from their discourse. It follows that by revealing their images they
end up by denuding several versions of their identity. But what are these identities and how do
they operate in discourse?
2.4 Identity
The concept of identity has lately been focus of diverse questioning which resulted in a
surprising discursive explosion (HALL, 2000, p.103). Within this explosion, the definition of
an identity largely depends on the prism under which it is approached. The essencialist point
of view, for example, defends the existence of an authentic identity, true solid essence whereas
the non-essencialist view advocates the idea of mobility and fluidness of identity, as a discursive
socio-historical construction during which meanings produced in discourse sound like historical
and social meanings interdiscursively acting.
All this theorization points at the complexity of the topic in question, for as Hall (2006)
claims, people do not possess only one identity because it is plural in the sense that it
incorporates a contextual variety of factors including the historical, linguistic and cultural ones
during the construction not of what we are but of what we have become. Identities do not
respond to questions as ‘who we are’ or ‘where we came from’, but to ‘who we can become’, ‘how
we have been represented’ and how such representation affects the form with which we can
represent ourselves( p.109).
From this assertion it can be inferred that the construction of identity is a going-to be
process that constructs, de-constructs and re-constructs itself according to our representations.
Still, Hall claims that the way we take our positions are constitutive of our identity. Commenting
on this same theme, Munanga (2009) advocates that identity is born ‘from the moment we take
conscience of the differences between us and the others’ (p.11). This indicates the construction
of identity not as an individual but a collective process which suffers internal and external
influences from the dialogic relations set with other subjects and which are crossed by the
discursive formations (both social and ideological) built during our life long and co-existing in
interdiscursivity.
38
Under a sociological viewpoint, the personal dimension is fundamental for the construction
of identities because that dimension refers to subjectivity, the subject’s individuality, involving
notional aspects such as conscience and the self, whereas identity defines features capable of
identifying the subject externally. Both are unconsciously built in a constant process of (trans)
formation. I remind you here to retrace the notions developed by Mikhail Bakhtin in Unit 1.
In relation to these affirmatives, researchers say that each generation builds its social
identity on the grounds of the preceding generation’s behavior and makes use of its identity
strategies.
Let me illustrate my point.
Consolidation Exercise:
Read the following text taken from Married with children, a

weekly American TV series in the 1980’s. It is a show about a shoe
salesman, Al Bundy, who raises his dysfunctional family. Peggy
is Al’s wife; she is addicted to shopping and watching Oprah
◄ Figure 19: The Bundy
Winfrey’s show. They have two children, Bud and Kelly. Al does family in the series
not like working, Peggy hates cooking and cleaning, Kelly and Married with Children
Bud hate school, and they all hate their neighbors and visitors. Al of the 1980s.
Bundy does not pay the income tax annually. Bud is a smart guy Source: http://www.
but Kelly is a very stupid young blonde lady. The group is an anti- tv.com/shows/married-
with-children.
American family and this is the cause of the series success and its
humoristic facet.
One day, because of their usual misbehavior towards people they are taken to the Court
House in front of the judge, the defendants, the plaintiff, some policemen and the audience. The
Bundies start quarreling with each other in the middle of the session. The judge becomes very
upset and shouts: Task
Answer: Did you
Judge - Order in court! laugh, dear students?
Kelly Bundy – I want a cheeseburger and a soda, your honor! Yes? No? Why?
Consolidation Exercise: Glossary

Soda: non-alcoholic
1. Read and analyze the text below then beverage as Coke-
A) Discuss enunciation and analyze enunciates. Cola
B) Identify the Locutionary act (the linguistic strategies).
C) Identify the illocutionary act (the enunciator’s/ locutor’s intention).
D) Identify the Perlocutionary act (the effect provoked).
I have done letter A for you.

A) Enunciation is the previous text contextualizing the Bundies.
B) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
C) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
D) ____________________________________________________________________________________________
How about identity in this text/discourse?
The Bundies are a good example of how professional and personal identities are spaces
of struggles and conflicts (NÓVOA 1992) in which discourses are engendered, places where
ideology and language meet. In this sense, DA claims that the subject, even disregarding that
meaning is not born from or in him, finds himself invaded by ideology and the imaginary. It
follows that speech and discourse are supported by socially available images departing from
discursive and ideological formations. The conclusion is that the meanings and identities these
subjects articulate and reveal in the series are not born in them but in interdiscourse that
exposes various other discourses, such as education, manners, habits, American life style etc., to
which they have been socially and historically submitted and which are collectively constructed,
not individually. All the versions of identities revealed in the text are intimately related to the
author’s intentionality.
39
2.5 Critical discourse analysis (CDA)

Preliminaries
Critical thinking about situations and texts is as ancient as mankind or philosophy itself.
Therefore, it is older than postmodern thought, as Dewey (1933) illustrates when he defined
the nature of reflective thought as “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief
or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further
conclusion to which it tends” (1933, p. 9). It follows that when critically evaluating a text or
discourse one should not limit his research to postmodern theories, though Discourse Analysis is
generally perceived as the product of the postmodern period.
The reason for this perception is that while other periods or philosophies are generally
characterized by a belief-system or meaningful interpretation of the world, postmodern
theories do not provide a particular view of the world, as there is no true view or interpretation
of the world. In other words, the postmodern period is distinguished from others (Renaissance,
Enlightenment, Modernism etc.) in that there is no evidence that the world is inherently
fragmented and heterogeneous, and that making any sort of system or belief is mere subjective
interpretation that is conditioned by its social surrounding and the dominant discourse
prevailing in its time. This means, again, that discourses are collectively constructed.
It is well to emphasize that behind the post-structuralist analysis of discourse lies Saussure’s
theory of language as a meaning-making system organized around relationships of opposition
and (re)combinations. For the French linguist, meaning comes from the possibility of linguistic
signs to be different from one another and yet to complement each other in intelligible
relationships within the system of language. However, post-structuralism goes beyond
Saussure’s theory of language to argue that these relationships of meaning-making are not
purely appertaining to the linguistic structures alone but also to the social structures, and their
conditions of possibility depend on the historical and political relationships in which they are
embedded. Foucault would say that linguistic relations appertain to particular systems of ‘power/
knowledge relations’ specific to their historical juncture (1977, p. 27).
Finally, CDA is a general label for a special approach to the study of text and speech
emerging specifically from critical linguistics and, in general, from a socio-politically conscious
and oppositional way of investigating language and communication. It is not easy to precisely
delimit the principles, aims, practices, theories or methods of CDA. No matter the various
To Learn More criteria used for doing CDA, it essentially deals with oppositional structures and strategies of
Read more about the elite (social, political, political, economic and religious) discourse and their cognitive and
CDA at the site social conditions, and mainly consequences, as well as the discourses of resistance against
www.ling.lancs. such domination. In this line of thought, it goes beyond usual methodological criteria of
ac.uk/staff/norman/
critdiscanalysis.doc observational, descriptive and explanatory adequacy (DIJK, 1955, pg-17-27).
Access: March, 2012. Following the principle that language is a form of social practice and focuses on the
Let us now discuss ways social and political domination are said to be visible both in text and speech/talk, CDA
Fairclough’s work. constitutes an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse.
2.5.1 Fairclough and Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical discourse analysis (CDA)emphasizes the

necessity of establishing methods for empirical
Figure 20: The English ► investigation of relations between discursive
sociologist Norman
Fairclough. and non-discursive practices. In this sense it
Source: www.timesofindia. distinguishes itself mainly from discourse theory.
indiatimes.com › Topics. For the study of critical discourse the work of
Em cache Norman Fairclough is central.
For him discourse is both a communicative
act and a social practice. Under this view,
discourses constitute social phenomena, but
are also constituted in the form of social (or
political) practice. Therefore, any use of language
40
(communicative action) consists of a discursive practice where discourses are produced or used,
and a social practice or an institutional context, of which a communicative action is an integral
part. The communicative action can draw on (use) or create (produce) discourses, but it will
always be part of an order of discourse, where several discourses are articulated simultaneously.
The communicative act is linked to a social practice through the use of genres or conventional
text types.
Fairclough combines linguistic textual analysis with macro and microsociological
analysis of texts and conversations, using a comprehensive research design which identifies
five components: problem formulation, choice of empirical methods, transcription, analysis
and results, each extended by specific methods and checklists. In contrast to the theory of
discourse, CDA distinguishes betweendiscourses and institutions as two different types of
social phenomena. CDA studies how discourses and institutions interact in the constitution
of a social world, and how discursive practices are institutionalized or moved from linguistic
utterances to set conditions for stable social relations. CDA attempts to uncover the ideologies
which contribute to the production and reproduction of power and has also a political aim: It
tries to find how discourse limits our understanding of the world and how is it that this discourse
contains several competing discourses and, obviously, also the possibility of dominant ideologies
be contested.
First developed by the Lancaster school of linguists, of which Norman Fairclough was the
most prominent figure, CDA attracted faithful followers such as Ruth Wodak, for example, that
has also contributed remarkably to this field of study.
Fairclough developed a three-dimensional framework for studying discourse whose aim
is to map three separate forms of analysis into one another: analysis of (spoken or written)
language texts, analysis of discourse practice (processes of text production, distribution and
use) and analysis of discursive events as instances of sociocultural practice. Particularly, he
combines micro, meso and macrolevels of interpretation. At the first level, the analyst considers
syntax, metaphoric structures and metonymical devices. The meso-level studies text production
and uses and focuses on how power relations are enacted. At the macro-level, the analyst is
concerned with inter-textual understanding of the broad, societal circumstances that interfere
in the text production. The approach draws from several disciplines in the humanities and social
sciences, such as critical linguistics. (Available at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourseanalysis. Access
in: March, 2011.)
In this scenario, ideology is seen as embedded in discursive practices, and discourses as To Learn more
more or less ideological, where the ideological discourses would be those contributing to
For other examples
maintaining (or establishing) power relations, and would be embedded in discursive practices;
that show this intimate
and discourses would be more or less ideological. Since then CDA has been deployed as a relation of language
method of multidisciplinary analysis for the humanities and social sciences. Nevertheless, it and power, visit http:/
does not describe itself only as a method, or technique, but rather as an approach, though its donosdamidia.com.br,
practitioners assume and share that language and power are closely related. I do not think this where you can learn
more about how the
assertion would give rise to doubts about the fact that language is closely related to power.
TVs control media
Examples of that are Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chaves, Getúlio Vargas, Fernando Collor de direct or indirectly.
Mello, Bill Clinton and Benito Mussolini, to name only a few, presidents, dictators and masters in
the use of language to exert power and inculcate values of all sorts.
Still, in this context, ideology plays a central role once it can also harness language for
inverting things into their opposites. The scariest example in modern times is how preparations
for war are transformed into means to ‘keep the peace with the menace of ‘communism’ in the
second half of the XX century. Huge sums of money could be made in the defence industry
that would pass such ‘generous contributions’ on to political parties. In 1946, George Orwell
described how this transformation affects language and discourse with an uncanny prescience
of the future (say, Americans in Vietnam in the 1970s or South Africa’s mercenaries in Angola and
Mozambique in the 1980s).
In addition to linguistic theory, CDA’s approach draws from social theory — and
contributions from Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser, Jürgen Habermas, Michel
Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu — in order to investigate ideologies and power relations involved
in discourse. Since language is a major tool for conveying ideology it transits in societies as
a space for imposing, or resisting power. Ideology has been pointed out as the basis for social
representations, and psychological versions of CDA seem to assume that it is a kind of socio-
cognitive interface between social and discourse structures. In critical discourse studies the
historical dimension also plays an important role.
41
Although CDA is sometimes mistakably viewed as a ‘method’ of discourse analysis, it is

generally agreed that any explicit method in discourse studies, and also in the humanities and
social sciences, may be used in CDA research, as long as it is able to produce insights adequately
and relevantly about the way discourse reproduces (or resists) social and political inequality,
power abuse or domination. That is, CDA does not limit its analysis to specific structures of texts
or speech, but systematically relates such structures to the sociopolitical context; this makes
CDA an interdisciplinary approach.
Besides Fairclough, Wodak and Teun A. van Dijk, notable researchers ofCDA are Ernesto
Laclau, Phil Graham, Theo Van Leeuwen, James Paul Gee, Roger Fowler, Gunther Kress, and Bob
Hodge.
Following CDA principles, in one of his work Fairclough narrates a long research program
for developing the contribution of critical discourse analysis within trans-disciplinary research on
‘transition’ in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).
He first describes the theoretical and methodological framework he has been working
with in this research, and then discusses, in terms of this framework, changes in Romanian
government policy towards problems of poverty and ‘social exclusion’, which are associated with
the re-contextualization in Romania of the European Union (EU) strategy for combating poverty
and achieving ‘social inclusion’. He concentrates his focus on social change and transformation.
In the same line of thought Fairclough published another book, Discourse and Social
Change (1993) that includes a critical introduction to discourse analysis as it is practiced in
a variety of different disciplines today, from linguistics and sociolinguistics to sociology and
cultural studies. The English sociologist/linguist demonstrates how concern with the analysis of
discourse can be combined, in a systematic and fruitful way, with an interest in broader problems
of social analysis and social change.
Fairclough provides a concise and critical review of the methods and results of discourse
analysis, discussing the descriptive work of linguists and conversation analysts as well as the
historically and theoretically oriented work of Michel Foucault. The editor’s book description
comments that Fairclough ‘[…]firmly situates discourse in a broader context of social relations
bringing together text analysis, the analysis of processes of text production and interpretation,
and the social analysis of discourse events.(Available at: www.scribd.com/doc/36677563/
Discourse-and-Social-Change - 667k ..: Access: , March, 2012)
Fairclough’s work has been influential all over the world mainly for its objective of
promoting social change, but far beyond any transformation there is always the possibility of the
individual’s enacting in society and in the world. Fairclough’s later studies on critical discourse
analysis focuses on trans-disciplinary research on social change: transition, re-scaling, poverty
and social inclusion.
One last word to help understand CDA and Fairclough’s ideas is the notion of discursive
formation (DFs), already discussed in this course book, and here defined as the regularities that
produce such discourses. Foucault used the concept of discursive formation in relation to his
analysis of large bodies of knowledge, such as political economy and natural history.
The contribution of the postmodern Discourse Analysis is the application of critical thought
to social situations and the unveiling of hidden (or not so hidden) politics within the socially
dominant as well as all other discourses (interpretations of the world, belief systems etc.).
Discourse Analysis can be applied to any text, that is, to any problem or situation. Since it is
basically an interpretative and deconstructing reading, there are no specific guidelines to follow.
One could, however, make use of the theories of Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva,
or Fredric Jameson, as well as of other critical and postmodern thinkers.
Therefore, I may say, in a perhaps simplifying and paradoxical way, that DA, as a completely
developed disciplinary field within the social and human sciences would not exist if the study
of the discursive and textual workings based on a reflection on discursive genres was not
dominant. But discourse analysis would not exist if critical, even para-philosophical, approaches
were not possible. This is probably a constitutive tension in the ongoing trends in discourse
analysis.
Let me analyze the following cartons in the light of Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis
(CDA).
42
2.5.1.1 Ideology: work relations, entrepreneurs and profit
Purposely, the interlocutor-cartoonist uses the word cool to introduce humor in the text. Figure 21: Illustration
The word cool is intentionally used ambiguously as ‘ice’ and ‘temper’. The use of cool as a noun is of DA under ideology,
guaranteed by the presence of the modifier “his” in the noun phrase “his cool”. Text is built with a work relations,
entrepreneurs and
web of relations such as cause and effect (due to an accident (cause) and Randolph lost his cool profit.
(effect, or consequence). Source: Essential Idioms in
Verbal and nonverbal languages allow for inferring that Randolph is the driver of the English p.147.
truck which is loaded with ice (cool), probably from the ice factory. Linguistic expressions as
Randolph’s ICE– possessive or genitive case–read in the lateral part of the truck container, and
also in the dialog enunciates on the cartoon help us deduce that Randolph is the owner of the
ice factory.
Notice how the linguistic structures and the design operate in perfect harmony because
without the linguistic code, which names the man as Randolph (Due to an accident, Randolph
lost his cool.), we could not, dear students, conclude that the stressed man is Randolph himself
and that he drives the truck of his own factory. These linguistic aspects must be discussed with
your students to avoid useless mistakes.
Even if Randolph had not uttered one single word, we could take conclusions about his
state of mind, obviously by analyzing the nonverbal devices - the detailed design. If we limited
our analysis to only looking at the truck and the ice falling down from its container and asked:
“What did Randolph lose?”, the answer certainly would be his cool, referring only to the ice load.
However, on analyzing Randolph’s figure, we can see his hands on his head and his trying to pull
his hair out, his grinding his teeth, his feet out of the ground, signs of his despair and stress in
face of the accident which will bring him loss of money. We notice that losing the ice load (cool)
made him lose his temper/cool as well. For these reasons, in using the word cool ambiguously,
that is, with two different scripts, author’s intention was to cause humor and provoke laughter.
The two scripts intertwine and when we understand the two meanings for ‘cool’ we can (slightly)
laugh.
The usual consequence of accidents like this is that costs will go up and profit will go down
once Randolph lost his ice/cool load and also had a flat tire. His losing his temper is a natural
reaction of an entrepreneur before the damages and loss of merchandize and money. This comes
to denude the relation entrepreneur-work-profit current in the capitalist system that abhors
losses in general. Had Randolph been an employee (relation-work-production) and things would
be differently analyzed: generally, an employee would not stress himself that much for his boss’s
43
losing of goods or profit. My last remarks/enunciates are originated from voices of my world-
knowledge– the empirical subject - used for texts comprehension, that is, pragmatics, which you
should also discuss with your students, my friends.
We are now moving on to analyze a text involving ideology and relations of power, work
and production.
2.5.1.2 Ideology: relations of power, work and production
Figure 22: Ideology: ►

work and power.
Source: PREPES/PUC-Minas/
Course book of Semantics
and D.A, July 2010, by Hele-
na MG. Magalhães.
On analyzing both verbal and nonverbal devices we can infer that the theme is the relation
power, work and social relations. The employee/interlocutor/subject was caught by surprise with
his boss’ presence in the office. The employee’s surprise is clearly marked by circles, which give
the idea of movement, around his head. Employee was not working but reading a newspaper,
fact that points to no production and future loss. For these reasons, the boss (enunciator, subject)
exerts his power and fires the employee.
What helped me conclude that, the images, the linguistic structures? There is nothing in
the linguistic code to guarantee such inference. The enunciates As soon as you finish with the
sports section, I suggest you turn to the ‘Help Wanted’ ads, are loaded with irony that makes
the employee understand he is fired. Social and ideological formations point to the presence
of other voices (and discursive formations) in discourse which announce that bosses and firm
proprietors have the power to fire an employee who does not produce and brings no profit for
them, no matter why, and with no regard to the fact that he may not find another job, what
could result in a serious social problem: joblessness. Who cares? They are disposable.
One could say that the employee could be in his break time but if this were the case, the
employer would not have fired him. The employer would, perhaps, only reprimand him for his
bad manners in sitting.
The boss’ intention with his indirect enunciates – his illocutionary act – is to fire the
employee. The cartoonist/humorist’s intention is to produce humor and provoke laughter, or
a smile. But we cannot help concluding that he intends to provoke some thinking over certain
social matters since an aura of criticism can be perceived in the cartoon. What do you think, my
friends?
Now, as gender identity is nowadays considered a category plausible of analysis in
discourse, I will make brief considerations about it as identities are like subjects: never finished,
always in a never-ending construction process.
44
2.6 Critical discourse analysis and

gender identities: a very brief
account
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) contributed a considerable number of works to develop
a conceptual framework to discuss both gender identities and the ways in which they are
constructed as part of discursive processes. Fairclough (1992 – trans., 2001; 1995), Fairclough and
Wodak (1997), Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999), and Fairclough (2000) broadly speaking, have
proposed steps to advance CDA as an approach linking the detailed analysis of text practiced in
Linguistics to societal concerns about class, gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality as studied in the
social sciences.
Once they have little to do with present social life, and are shaped to a great extent by
quasi-interaction in the media, I must briefly problematize gender essentialist identities.
Historically, women and men’s roles have been fixed in diverse institutions, such as family,
religion, schools, professions and tribunals. As a consequence of intercultural relations caused by
migration, presently these fixed identities have given way to mobile hybrid ones.
Researchers suggest that the mother identity now coexists with other identities, such
as those of the feminine and feminist ones constructed in the media. Caldas-Coulthard (1999)
examine women’s stories in magazines dealing with sex paid for and sex enjoyed. Some
investigators analyze autobiographies of women, focusing on professional identities. Others
extend the debate to consider institutions and organizations, such as the Church.
As a result of the interface between verbal and visual texts, gender identities are
constructed in dynamic social processes, texts are defined here in two senses: as the semiotic
dimension of practice developed by systemic functional linguistics/SFL (HALLIDAY;HASAN,
1989) and as a discursive contribution designed to be comprehended in a different context
(CHOULIARAKI; FAIRCLOUGH,1999). Every time texts are understood in a new setting involving time
and space relations, they can be reinforced, extended, abridged, quoted, criticized, denied, or imitated
(BAKHTIN, 1997). Genders and gender identities are also a category for the work with DA.
And yet, discourse analysis should not just describe and demystify the discourse of cultural
confrontation and victimisation of whatever genres or types. If we proceed to angry counter-attacks
on racism or feminism and machism adepts, we get drawn into their own mode of confrontational
discourse. Developing alternative strategies for co-operation and cultural integration is far harder, and
certainly will not be achieved without concerted projects and explicit models.
DA increasingly raises the prospect of not merely describing discursive practices but
transforming the mind to more progressive practices. An example of framework would
be the ideology of ecologism, where theory and practice are reconciled through human
co-operation in consciously sustaining a life-style in harmony with our social and ecological
environment, and in programmatic opposition to the dominant ideology of consumerism.
Undoubtedly the survival of the planet over the next century hinges on developing more
progressive strategies of discourse for sharing and accessing crucial knowledge and for
communicating about our problems and conflicts.
2. 7 Discourse analyses of
distinctive types of texts
After all I have been discussing with you, in order to make things clearer to you, dear
students, in this section I will provide you with the analysis of different texts in diverse social
contexts such as the literary, the non-literary, and the humorous ones. I want to apologize for not
being a literary critic, but only a language and discourse analyst.
45
Let us work with a very important and significant poem; so say my discursive formations.
The famous poem, by John Donneis called No Man is an Island. Let us find out where its
fame comes from.
Figure 23 and 24: John Donne (1572 –1631) Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961).
Sources: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JohnDonne. Access in: December, 2011.
pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hemingway. Access in: December, 2011
No man is an island
(Excerpt from Meditation XVII, of Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, by John Donne)
No man is an island entire of itself;

every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less,
as well as if promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were.
Any man’s death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind;
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
it tolls for thee.
Donne was an English poet, satirist, lawyer and priest. Considered the pre-eminent
representative of the metaphysical poets, his works, include sonnets, love poetry, religious
poems, Latin translations, epigrams, elegies, songs, satires and sermons noted for their strong,
sensual style. His poetry is remarkable for its vibrant language and inventive use of metaphor,
especially if compared to those of his contemporaries. Donne’s style is characterized by the use
of abrupt openings and various paradoxes, irony and dislocations. Such features along with his
frequent dramatic or everyday speech rhythms, his tense syntax and his tough eloquence were a
reaction against the smoothness of conventional Elizabethan poetry.
Written in the XVI century, No Man is an Island makes us evoke philosophers and linguists
ideas recently researched: that subjects, identities, discourses and meanings only exist within
social historical relations. They are never individual but mediated by social relations within
groups such as the family, work, church etc. Even if the individual, in this case the poet John
Donne, believes he speaks for himself, that he is inaugurating meaning, in fact, his speech echoes
many speeches socially available at the time he lived. Therefore, many other voices are present in
his (inter)discourse: those of the social, religious and historical relations, to name only a few.
Interdiscursivity in Donne’s language reveals he is engaged in postulating that humanity is
an indivisible whole – the continent – of which each man is a part – a piece of the continent, a
46
part of the main -, one depending upon the other. In this aspect, he corroborates philosophical
contemporary ideas of holism, in a relation of autonomous dependence. Some social and
ideological discursive formations emerge from the poem in–between lines and above their
level, as he refers to death. If a man dies mankind is diminished because one part of the whole
is lost and the whole is entire no more. The metonymic relation part and whole is competently
and aesthetically established. The theme, as far as I can see, is humanity is a whole/we are all
brothers. The categories are love and solidarity.
It is worth remembering that Ernest Miller Hemingway (1899 – 1961) was an American
short-story writer, author and journalist. His economical and understated style had a strong
influence on 20th-century fiction, whereas his life of adventure and his public image would
influence later generations. He killed himself with his favorite shot-gun in 1961.But why would I
be talking about this novelist?
Hemingway used John Donne’s poem both as an epigraph and a title for his novel For
Whom the Bells Toll (1927). The title is taken from the final lines of Donne’s poem.
In his novel, Hemingway tells of a love story during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1938). The
novelist worked as a journalist in Spain at that time and was devastated by the high number of
casualties (dead soldiers) in that war. He thought that the idea of diminishing the parts would
compromise the whole and that the deaths of human beings for useless (political) purposes and
(economical) reasons were abominable.
Though he might not have thought specifically about deaths in wars, but in mankind,
generically, Donne’s discourse in the poem is pretty much like Hemingway’s in the novel. In
Meditation XXVII voices other than Donne’s are captured: those of the seventeenth century
philosophy, existentialist crisis and those of religious anguish and fear. Born into an English
Catholic family, when practice of that religion was illegal in England, Donne became a Catholic
priest. Thus, the discursive, social and ideological formations denuded in his poem are a portrait
of the social, philosophical, religious, ideological and historical relations available at that century.
These relations seem to be transferred, so to speak, to the anguish of the late19th and 20th
centuries and to Hemingway’s text/discourse. The American novelist went into an existentialist
crisis caused by his experience of World War I after which he and other modernists lost faith in
the central institutions of Western civilization. Fundamentally because of these disbeliefs he
reacted against the elaborate style and canons of 19th century writers - as much as Donne did
- creating a style where meaning is established through dialogue, action, and silences. His was a
fiction in which nothing fundamental- at least explicitly - was stated.
This same capacity for economical but clear writing is detected in Donne’s poem. Is it not
wonderful to compare literatures? Can you believe we compared a poem to a novel? Yes, and
it was DA that allowed us for doing so. Did I not tell you that critical discourse analysis is an
interdisciplinary discipline and can also become transdisciplinary?
Now, let me analyze a very shorter but not least revealing poem.
Four Ducks on a Pond (By William Allingham, 1824 – 1889, Irish man of letters and a poet).
Four ducks on a pond,

A grass-bank beyond,
A blue sky of spring,
White clouds on the wing;
What a little thing
To remember for years-
To remember with tears!
The theme is (longing) childhood and the category is memories.

The author’s intention is to bring about facts of his childhood with a certain tone of
simplicity by evoking a scenario of that time. The enunciator’s voice tells he misses the time
he was a child very much. Why? Because every time he remembered that time he would cry.
Through his words we can infer that those were happy days during spring that would be no
more because time does not return. And that ‘little thing‘, suddenly becomes a great thing, a
reminiscence that brings tears because such moments of joy will never return.
And yet, Allingham’s discourse is not individual but mediated by social relations (family and
childhood) values and the spirit of the time (zeitgeist) in which he lived (1824-1889). Therefore
47
even if Allingham is sure he speaks for himself that he is creating new senses and meanings, from
Task his speech emerge voices literarily, historically and socially available in the nineteenth century.
Discuss with your tutor: An evidence of that is the perfect rhyme he uses in his poem (AA-BBB-CC). William Allingham
What would have been was a famous classic poet who always wrote poems of lyrical phrasing, simplicity, and charm as
the perlocutionary act
(the effect) of the poem Four Ducks on a Pond, in which he writes little but means a lot.
on the interlocutors/
readers? Now, let us discuss a poem by the American poet Robert Frost.
The Road not Taken (1920 (by Robert Frost; published in 1916 in the collection Mountain
Interval.)
Figure 25: Robert Frost, ►

American poet (1874
–1963), wrote The Road
not Taken.
Source:photobucket.com/
images/robert%20frost/.
Access in February, 2012
Figure 26: Illustration ►

of the anguish of the
choice for a road.
Source:en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/The_Road_Not_
Taken-
The Road Not Taken

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
48
Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim
Because it was grassy and wanted wear,
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I marked the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Source: Available at: www.bartleby.com › ... › Mountain Interval. Access in February, 2012.
The poem needs some contextualization. First of all, it was labeled as a very tricky poem by
Frost himself. He explained that his poem was about him and his friend Edward Thomas, with
whom he had walked many times in the woods near London. While walking they would come
to different paths and after selecting one, Thomas would always wonder what they might have
missed by not taking the other path. In this sense, Frost himself reveals the presence of Thomas’
voice – social relations available - in the poem/discourse and suggests indecision (and probably
regret) for not having taken the other road. The poem theme is making choices. Decisions (hard
to make) and memories could be two categories of (discourse) analysis.
Both literal and figurative meanings seem obvious to me. The literal tells me that traveler
came to a fork in the road; he had to decide which way to go to continue his journey. After some
mental debate, he chooses the road ‘less traveled by’.
By means of the ‘life-is-a-journey’ metaphor, the figurative meaning is that people go
through tough choices in life, a consensus-refrain largely known among social circles and
inculcated by polyphonic discourses during social relations. The traveler leaves some possibilities
of regret for not having chosen the road in the past. He realizes he probably will not pass this
way again, at least not in the same circumstances and, of course, mediated and interpelated by
other social and historical relations. What would have been the effect (perlocutionary act) of the
poem on the readers?
Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Taken” has been one of the most analyzed, quoted,
anthologized poems in American poetry. A widespread interpretation says the speaker in
the poem is promoting individualism and non-conformity. Nonsense, in what individualism
is concerned, because even if you want to be an individualist you will not succeed because
everything is constructed collectively not individually. This is made evident by the relation of
voices of the 1920s status quo echoing all over the poem. It goes without saying that the perfect
rhyming, one of the exigencies of the poetic style of those years is present in the poem.(Available
at: http://poetrypages.lemon8.nl/life/roadnottaken/roadnottaken.htm.Access in March, 2011)
How about some Shakespeare now, dear students? In the hope that you have read, or heard
of, this play, and that Shakespeare and his critics will forgive me, I will analyze the last enunciates
of Hamlet’s final act, last scene.
49
And the rest is silence
Figure 27 and 28: Illustrations of the film Hamlet (1990).

Source:www.imdb.com/title/tt0099726/Em cache - Access in February, 2012
O! I die, Horatio;
The potent poison quite o’er-crows my spirit:
I cannot live to hear the news from England,
But I do prophesy the election lights
On Fortinbras: he has my dying voice;
So tell him, with the occurrents, more and less,
Which have solicited—The rest is silence.
(Available at: www.enotes.com› ... ›HamletDiscussion.Access in: February, 2012)
The text is part of Hamlet’s final speech in which the Bard makes the character reflect on
the fact that he is dying, and will be part of nothing else in life. The rest of his life and story is
silence. His life is ending too soon, leaving a wide gap of silence. Hamlet realizes he needs to rely
on Horatio to tell the story of his uncle, his father, his mother, the whole plot, how Ophelia died,
and finally how Hamlet’s promising life was cut short.
Hamlet’s alleged insanity reveals one version of his identity and also the presence of many
subjects in his discourse influenced by social relations whose topics in the play include rumors
of treason, infidelity, murders and lack of loyalty, also historical and political relations of that
Task time and present in the play plot. In the excerpt: ‘the election lights On Fortinbras: he has my
Answer: What voice is dying voice, the Bard evidences the presence of another voice and that discourse is constructed
heard when Hamlet collectively in social, historical relations.
speaks of the potent Interestingly, the enunciates ‘The rest is silence’ have been utilized as a refrain in many
poison in line one?
situations whenever the circumstances used in the play apply. Chances are that you could say:
‘your behavior leaves no doubt, and the rest is silence’, meaning ‘no other words are necessary’…
What would have been Shakespeare’s intention on producing those final words? What
would have been audiences or readers’ reactions to them?
Now, let us have some fun. Let me analyze some humoristic texts.
In the Hospital
Minutes after having given birth to her baby, mother receives the doctor’s visit who
solemnly gets closer to her bed and says:
50
‘There is something I must tell you about your baby’.

‘What is wrong? The alarmed Mom asks’.
‘Your baby is an hermaphrodite’.
‘And what does it mean?’
‘It means your baby is half male and half female.’
‘Oh, my God, this is wonderful! The woman exclaimed. You mean he has a penis and a brain?’
It is well to remind you that a humoristic text is technically constructed by means of

normality and violation. Normality is the first part of the text which runs normally – as in
the first seven lines of the dialog above. Suddenly, violence crosses the text, excerpt which
introduces elements that cause humor and provoke laughter – as in the last lines of the dialog.
Therefore two scripts are used and they intermingle to provoke laughter.
Enunciation is composed by the introductory text to the joke.
Subjects in this text discourse include the doctor, the patient, the readers and your
world-knowledge (the empirical subject), among others. Polyphony and interdiscursivity are
guaranteed by the voices emerging from the social-historical, ideological and scientific relations
which give evidence that discourse is never constituted individually but collectively.
The interlocutor/patient ignores the meaning of hermaphrodite but the social and
ideological relations bring a voice which announces that patient corroborates and celebrates
the conflicting idea that women have brain and that they are able to think and men are not.
Discourse allows us to conclude that she implies that men would only care about their penis
and make a good use of it. The humorist’s intentionality is guaranteed by irony intelligently
used when patient ignores the fact that her son is doubled sexed, to cause humor. The effect
(perlocutionary act) he expects from audience is laughter. I ask you, dear students: Would this
patient/mother be blonde? Yes? No? Be careful when answering the question, because your
discursive social, historical and ideological formations may reveal a prejudiced person if you
corroborate the stereotype...
Let me analyze now a famous strip from Calvin and Hobbes, two American cartoonists.
▲
Figure 29: Illustration
CALVIN-strips on familial relations and
Enunciation is firstly composed by what you can read right above the strips: I’m sure discourse.
anyone who’s had kids will appreciate this one…, and by the readers’ world-knowledge. Source: PREPES/PUC Minas
Interdiscourse in the text points towards voices emerging from social and ideological Handout of Discourse
relations. Familial relations show that Mom is used to Calvin’s yelling for empty reasons and she Analysis (2010), by Helena
M. G. Magalhães. Available
reacts according to this assumption. She demands his stopping yelling and walking over to the at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
place where she was. This is the first script of the humoristic strip. Calvin_and_Hobbes.
However, the second script is in course to arise humor and the last locutionary acts will Access: July, 2007.
51
bring laughter. The empiricist subject - your world-knowledge - reveals that the kid could not
have walked in the house over to where his Mom was because he had stepped on shit and his
shoes were dirty. He just wanted the hose to clean up the mess he had done. Sometimes social
relations lead us to wrong conclusions.
In the last strip the image helps you detect the effect - the Perlocutionary act –of Calvin’s
words and acts on his Mom: she is desperate. This last conclusion was possible because of the
nonverbal language in which Mom is seen with her hands on her head.
Did you hear any voice claiming that there is a gap in communication in Calvin’s house?
I did. What would be its message? That adults should listen to what children want to say,
regardless of their yelling.
That is it. I hope you have enjoyed and profited from my analyses.
2.8 References
ALTHUSSER, L. P. Ideologia: aparelhos ideológicos de Estado. Tradução. J. J. Moura Ramos.
Lisboa: Presença, Martins Fontes, 1974 (título original: Idéologie et appareils ideéologiques
d’Ètat,1970
BAKHTIN, M. M. Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Poetics. Edited and translated by Caryl Emerson.

Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press. 1984
BOLOGNINI, C. Z. Refletindo sobre a escola como instituição: o lugar de diferentes efeitos

de sentido. In. Lingüística Aplicada: suas faces e interfaces. Ângela B. Kleiman,Marilda C.
Cavalcanti,(orgs.) Campinas,SP. Mercado das Letras, 2007
CALDAS-COULTHARD. Revistas para mulheres no século 21: ainda uma prática discursiva
http://www3.unisul.br/paginas/ensino/pos/linguagem/0403/6%20art%204.pdf
CHOULIARAKI, L.; FAIRCLOUGH, N. Discourse in late modernity: rethinking critical discourse

analysis.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999.
DEWEY, J. How We Think, New York: D. C. Heath. Classic and highly influential discussion of
thinking.1933.
FAIRCLOUGH, N. L; WODAK, R. KeganPaul.Critical discourse analysis.In Glasgow University

Media Group.1997.
FAIRCLOUGH, Norman. Discourse, Social Theory, and Social Research: The Discourse of Welfare
Reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(2): 163-195.2000
FAIRCLOUGH, Norman. Language and Power.London: Longman,1989 (second revised edition

2001).
____________________. Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity Press.

CriticalLanguage, 1992
____________________. Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.1993
HALL, Stuart. A identidade cultural na pós-modernidade. Tradução: Tomaz Tadeu da Silva.

Guacira Lopes Louro.11ª edição. Rio de Janeiro. Dp&A EDITORA,2006
HALLIDAY, M.; HASAN, R. Language, Context and Text: a social semiotic perspective, Oxford,
1989. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakhtin
MANANGA, K. InPrêmio Kabengele Munanga - XIª SEMANA DA ÁFRICA 2009 sessões

coordenadas de trabalhos científicos tema: Africa. africabrasilis.blogspot.com.../premio-
kabengele-munanga-xi-s...
MORIN, Edgar. A cabeça bem-feita. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil, 2000.
NÓVOA, Antônio. Os professores: Um “novo” objecto da investigação educacional? In: NÓVOA,

Antônio (Org.) Vidas de professores. Porto.Porto Editora,1992
52
ORLANDI, Eni Puccinelli. Análise do discurso: princípios e procedimentos. Campinas,SP. Pontes

6ª edição, 2005.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_and_Hobbes.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_and_Hobbes. Access: July, 2007.
www.bartleby.com › ...
www.discourses.org/.../Aims%20of%20Critical%...
www.discourses.org/.../Teun%20A%20van%20Dijk%20-...Accessin: June 2011
www.enotes.com› ... ›Hamlet Discussion.
www.imdb.com/title/tt0099726/Em cache -
www.photobucket.com/images/robert%20frost/
www.scribd.com/Discourse-and-Social-Chang
53
UNIT 3
What does History tell about DA?
Having provided you with several analyses of diverse texts and with pertinent theories to
ground my discussions of the topics involved in DA, in this Unit, I will briefly position Discourse
Analysis throughout history but could not resist the temptation to add more analyses of texts.
The Unit is purposely shorter than the other ones, and placed in the last Unit for reasons
already explained previously. However, I institute myself subject −enunciator here and now,
and institute YOU, dear students, interlocutors-locutors of our dialog, and reiterate: As I have
provided the course book with the pertinent theories for the understanding of what DA is and
how it operates, what really matters about DA, no matter if discourse analysis does not follow
strict established rules or procedures, it is its practice, that is, the analysis of various and diverse
materials to support tutors’ task and students effective learning. This was duly provided in the By
Way of Introduction and in Units 1 and 2. Unit 3 did not escape the scheme.
In this Unit, I have also included the history of DA in PowerPoint slide show, which is another
reason for this Unit being shorter. Study the slides and discuss them with your classmates and tutor.
3.1 Position of Discourse Analysis

(DA) in the linguistic pragmatic
and historical studies: brief history
3.1.1 Discourse Analysis - brief story
The Austrian emigrant Leo Spitzer’s is considered the earliest author to deal with discourse
analysis (DA) in his work Style Studies (Stilstudien) of 1928.Michel Foucault himself translated it into
French. But the term first came into general use following the publication of a series of papers by
Zellig Harris in 1952 from which he developed transformational grammar in the late 1930s.
In this work, Harris deals with formal equivalence relations among the sentences of a
coherent discourse which are made explicit by using sentence transformations to put the text in
a canonical form. His work progressed over the next four decades into a science of sublanguage
analysis (KITTREDGE; LEHRBERGER 1982), culminating in a demonstration of the informational
structures in texts of a sublanguage of science, that of immunology, (HARRIS et al. 1989) and a
fully articulated theory of linguistic informational content (HARRIS, 1991). During this time,
however, many linguists developed a series of elaborate theories of sentence-level syntax and
semantics, that is, in the linguistic level.
Harris had not worked out a comprehensive model until January, 1952, though he had
mentioned the analysis of whole discourses. Harris developed his methodology into a system
for the computer-aided analysis of natural language under the leadership of Naomi Sager at
NYU, which has been applied to a number of sublanguage domains, most notably to medical
informatics. (Available at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse analysis-.Access in January, 2012).
At the time, some researchers took Harris’ ideas of investigation: they recorded all of the
legends and, after going over the meaning and placement of each word with a native speaker
to find answers to some fundamental errors in translating from one language to another. The
linguist James A. Lauriault/Loriot, working for the American Bible Society, is an example of
these researchers. With Harris research Loriot was able to form logical mathematical rules that
transcended the simple sentence structure. He then applied the process to other languages.
55
He taught the theory in Norman, Oklahoma, in the summers of 1956 and 1957 and entered
the University of Pennsylvania. He tried to publish a paper Shipibo Paragraph Structure, but
it was delayed until 1970. In the meantime, Dr. Kenneth Lee Pike, a professor at the University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, taught the theory, and one of his students, Robert E. Longacre
disseminated it in a dissertation.
In the late 1960s and in the 1970s, and without reference to this prior work, a variety of
other approaches to a new cross-discipline of DA began to develop in most of the humanities
and social sciences concurrently with and related to other disciplines such as semiotics,
psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics. Many of these approaches, especially those
influenced by the social sciences, favor a more dynamic study of oral talk-in-interaction.
I must also mention the Conversational analysis, noun phrase coined by the Sociologist
Harold Garfinkel who is the founder of Ethnomethodology.
In Europe, Michel Foucault, undoubtedly one of the great researchers of discourse and
language in the XX century, wrote The Archaeology of Knowledge, book already approached in
this course, which made him one of the key theoreticians especially of language and discourse.
Foucault was a French philosopher, social theoretician
and historian of ideas. He is best known for his critical studies
Figure 30: Michel ►
Foucault (1926–1984). of social institutions, most notably psychiatry, medicine,
Source:educacao.uol. human sciences and the prison system as well as for his work
com.br/biographies/ on the history of human sexuality.
ult1789u720.jhtm On reading Foucault’s work I found out that he has a
‘criticalist’ vantage –that is to say, an approach which focuses
on the political utility and critical capacity on conceiving
the notion of discourse as a powerful means of enabling
forms of critique and resistance. This reading should neither
be as necessarily excluding a ‘descriptivist’ reading of Foucault
nor assumed to be uncontestable. A descriptivist position (cf.
MCHOUL; GRACE, 1997) would suggest that Foucault might
be better read as a ‘diagnostician’ of culture and society whose
special forms of history enable him to incisively characterize a
variety of historical phenomena, rather than consider him as a
critical methodologist whose work finds its greatest efficacy as a
political instrument of contestation and resistance.
Until recently, discourse analysis focused on language but gave no consideration to
languages. That is to say, the language a writer or speaker takes his stand was not considered
relevant. Lately, multilingual or cross-lingual discourse analysis has been developed. An example
of that is James W. Underhill who makes a contribution to this new field (2011 and 2012).
Language-specific constraints with which individuals are working as they struggle to express
themselves by resisting dominant discourse are the core of Underhill’s investigations. This
involves studying, for example, how colonized people resisted colonizers’ paradigms of thought
and language and how cross-lingual discourse analysis takes us into the way individuals handle
personification, objectification, prepositions and conceptual metaphors. Love, truth, hate and
war all turn out to be political both at a linguistic and discourse levels. Underhill (2012) insists
that resisting dominant ideologies means refusing to assimilate the spread of those ideologies
via language. According to him, the world is full of war-on-terrorism rhetoric, spread to many
European countries and also to American ones.
Some topics of DA include:
• The various levels or dimensions of discourse (sounds (intonation, stress, pitch level etc.),
gestures, syntax, the lexicon (vocabulary), style, rhetoric, meanings, speech acts, moves,
strategies, turns and other aspects of interaction
• Genres of discourse (various types of discourse in politics, the media, education, science,
business etc.)
• The relations between discourse and interaction
• The relations between discourse and the emergence of syntactic structure
• The relations between text (discourse) and context
• The relations between discourse and power
• The relations between discourse, cognition and memory
56
The last topic as well as the relations between discourse and politics was deliberately
neglected in this course book for reasons of space. However, some short but consistent
considerations about politics and discourse relations may be supplied. The others have been
duly contemplated.
Political discourse is a field focusing on discourse in political forums (such as debates,
speeches, and hearings) as a phenomenon of interest. In brief words it is the informal exchange
of reasoned views as to which several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve a
societal problem. It is a science that has been used through the history of many democratic
and Marxist regimens. Full of problems and persuasion, political discourse is used in many
debates, candidacies and in our everyday life. It is the essence of democracy and a weapon of
contemporary world.
Presently, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like
the continuance of US interfering in Afghanistan affairs, the Russian opaque relation with Middle
East countries, Hugo Chavez disdainful speeches on democracy while he rules a dictatorship in
Venezuela and Brazilian government support to corruption on part of its Ministers, can indeed
be defended but only by arguments that are too brutal for most people to face or embrace.
Political language these days consists largely of euphemism, question-begging, and sheer
cloudy vagueness to keep people quiet while defenceless village populations starve, inhabitants
in some countries are driven out into the countryside and their huts set on fire by incendiary
mercenaries. This was my CDA of political speeches.
There is no evidence that the world is inherently fragmented and heterogeneous and that
creating any sort of system or beliefs is mere subjective interpretation - and an interpretation
that is conditioned by its social surrounding and relations and the dominant discourse prevailing
in its time. Therefore, when critically evaluating a research or text, one should not limit oneself to
postmodern theories.
The purpose of Discourse Analysis is not to provide definite answers, but to expand our
personal horizons and make us realize our own shortcomings and unacknowledged motivations
- as well as that of others. In short, critical analysis reveals what is going on behind our backs and
those of other people, and which determines our acts.
Summarizing, what many language researchers have gathered about DA history from
the 1960s till today, Dominique Maingueneau, a French linguist summarized by explaining
that Discourse analysis developed consistently in France in the late sixties, mainly because the
conditions were favorable. Among some of these conditions he cites the scientific tradition,
school practice and an intellectual climate which came together to give birth and develop D.A
studies.
Maingueneau explained that the so-called scientific tradition included European
philology, always associated with historical studies and text analysis. Discourse analysis occupied
a good part of the territory that traditional philology had neglected though with very different
theoretical backgrounds.
School practice, Maingueneau states, referred to a kind of analysis called ‘close reading’
(explication de texte: explanation of the text) taught to students in secondary schools and to
those in the humanities. French discourse analysis has never been a sequence of literary
commentary, but surely found its roots in that practice. It is well to remember that since the late
19th century French stylistics was specifically and mainly based on grammatical analysis - of the
linguistic phenomena -, considered an obligatory step to the interpretation of texts, whereas the
inspiration of prestigious German stylistics was mainly hermeneutic and psychological. In this
way, French discourse analysis claimed to be found itself upon linguistics. Task
On its turn, the intellectual climate was that of French structuralism, particularly the
literary one in the sixties, tendency which opened new ways of studying texts as it advocated Access the content of
the PowerPoint slides
apprehending texts “immanently”, rather than with reference to the intentions of their author. and read it carefully
In the 1990s, to gather an introductory survey of the research trends which have because this material
contributed to discourse analysis was a hard task. To solve the problem, the solution was to tell will complement this
a story highlighting the main ideas that have helped or hindered discourse analysis, crediting brief summary of the
researchers or projects only for illustration. Many citations and references are found elsewhere. history of DA. Prepare
to discuss it with your
(The Story of Discourse Analysis, by Robert de Beaugrande.Available at: www. Access in: tutor.
February, 2011.)
57
3.2 PowerPoint slides: history of DA
3.3 Irony and discourse

3.3.1 Analysis of texts
I finish this course book by analyzing enunciates to illustrate irony and discourse in two
texts: one taken from the world folklore, the other a humoristic one.
Text 1.`When God created the world He made an honest division. He gave money to he
rich and hunger to the poor´.
The outstanding aspect in this text is the enunciator’s use of irony, a figure of language/
discourse which consists in giving the impression that you praise what you really intend to
condemn, that is, with irony one intends to suggest the opposite of what one truly is saying by
means of words. An ironical enunciate is especially at the risk of misunderstandings, and it is
context that will determine its real meaning. Examples: A boss says: what a wonderful employee
you are!’, meaning he is irresponsible, incompetent.
Let me explain this: The presence of irony guarantees that the enunciates will carry the
affirmation of a fact whereas negation will be hidden in the enunciation. Therefore, the function
of irony is to conceal, so to speak, truth in the enunciation, and you cannot see it there, but
you know it is there; however, it is the cruel reality that is explicit (denuded, affirmed) in the
enunciates. Let me make it clearer for you by analyzing the quote.
‘ HE made an honest division. HE gave money to the rich and hunger to the poor´, The
Task enunciates indicate that the author is advocating that this strange division is fair. The enunciates
Analyze the previ- (the locutionary speech acts, sentences, linguistic structures) would guarantee this analysis for
ous text in the light the discourse. But irony in the enunciation hides the true meaning of the quote: the division
of the possibility of is unfair. And the author’s illocutionary act (intention) is to criticize the status quo of a perverse
the author’s being an
social system which (always) punishes the poor and protects the rich.
agnostic or atheist.
Discuss this issue with How about the religious dimension? Does it cross discourses and inserts another voice in
your tutor. Discuss it the text?
with your tutor. To answer this question, I must remind you something I discussed on page 28 of this course
book. Discourses only exist within social relations. They are never individual but mediated
by social relations within groups such as the family, work, church etc. Even though the author
of the quote believes he speaks for himself, that he is creating a new meaning, in fact, the
interdiscourse captured echoes many subjects engendered in relations socially and historically
available. Therefore, yes, many voices are present in his (inter)discourse and religion is one of
them as much as others as the social and historical relations,
to mention only a few. Meanings are not individually but
collectively built, as I have already said elsewhere in this course
book.
The ideological religious relation does not tell us that
the irony used by the author is able to reveal his disbelief in
the figure of an entity called God. Again, irony protects him
from any flippant judgment. In my opinion, his intention
Figure 31: Samuel ► is to criticize the social status quo and class division and
Beckett (1906-1989).
the nefarious consequences of this perverse division. My
Source: educacao.uol.
com.br/biographies/
conclusion is, of course, associated to the social and religious
ult1789u804.jhtm relations available for me. But how would you analyze this
statement if enunciation told you for sure that the author is an
58
agnostic or atheist?
Now, let us analyze a statement by Samuel Beckett, one of the most important and
influential writers of the 20th century. He is best known as the leading playwright of the 1950s
movement called the theatre of the absurd. He is famous for his play Waiting for Godot (first
written in French as En Anttendant Godot) that won him the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1969. Let
me analyze one of Beckett’s quotes.
Text 2.´We are all born mad. Some remain so´. (Samuel Beckett)
Irony is again the outstanding aspect in this text. Beckett, the Irish writer and dramaturges
mocks human beings by saying they are all born mad and some of them remain mad. In sum,
some men remain mad all their life through. The anger that takes humanity is pure irony but
reveals the spirit of the time and the social philosophical relations available and constructed
collectively. Therefore, the playwright’s illocutionary act points towards criticism on the madness
that haunted people at that time. Identities are revealed since some men remain calm. Will it be
that those remaining quiet are the saviors of something?
Subjects include Beckett, the reader and your previous knowledge, dear students, which
allows you to read what is beyond the level of the sentences. Enunciation would be composed
by the information provided about the the Irish playwright.
Let me finally analyze a quote by Hitler (1889-1945).
Text 3.Í use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.´ (Adolf Hitler)
This is what I call ‘a pearl of a text’. Mr. Hitler, the leader of the Third Reich, the character who
dubbed himself an Arian despite being born in Austria and not in Germany, reveals one version
of his identities when he pretends to be Arian – the pure German race.
Hitler uses both irony and ideology to fulfill his discourse. So many voices can be heard
in his enunciates but mainly irony reveals us that the German Fuehrer exposes himself to
the German people since he addresses his speeches passionately and emotionally. On the
other hand, he preserves reason for his companions, the ones close to him and with whom he
discusses war strategies, countries invasions, the expansion of the Reich’s territory and, of course,
the extermination of Jews in the name of an insane purification of the German race. But reasons
were not other than those of involving economy. The word reason sounds strange to the ones,
like me, who have information that Hitler was completely insane.
Ideology and ideological formations permeate his discourse as it denudes a form of control
over his people through public addresses, when he overtly shows them his emotions which can
always be deceiving, cheating, disguising, camouflaging, concealing. Political speeches usually
have such characteristics and facets. The ideology permeating the text was solidly cemented in
Marxist ideas and theory. All this was conveyed by means of language, and language is power. It
exerts and inculcates various and diverse values on audience.
3.4 By Way of Conclusion

To close this course book I refer again to Michel Foucault, reminding and warning you that
without reference to materiality (as evidenced in the methods of Parker (1992) and Potter and
Wetherell (1987) discourse analysis remains largely condemned to ‘the markings of a textuality’,
a play of semantics, a decontextualized set of hermeneutic construes that can all too easily be
dismissed. More than this, by fixing only on textual effects (and on discourse as effect at the
cost of an awareness of discourse as also the instrument of power), could mean a dangerous
reductionism in thinking power.
One could suggest that the analysis of discourse, according to a Foucauldian perspective,
cannot remain simply within the text, but needs to move, conforming Said’s (1983) formulation,
both in and out of the text. If one is to guard that one’s analytic efforts do not result in mere
‘markings of textuality’, with limited political relevance, restricted generalizability and stunted
critical penetration, then it will be necessary to corroborate the findings of textual analyses
with reference to certain extra-textual factors (history, materiality, conditions of possibility), to
do exactly what Parker (1992) and Potter and Wetherell (1987) failed to do, that is, to drive the
analysis of the discursive through the extra-discursive.
59
Foucault’s theory of and approach to discourse has attempted to communicate his

understanding in as accessible and as straightforward a manner as possible. It goes without
saying that Foucault’s thinking in relation to the concept and methodology of discourse
was certainly complex, difficult, nuanced, and at times, flawed and contradictory. And also
Foucault’s position on discourse was not unchanging, clear, simple and unproblematic, however
has influenced many linguists and researchers all over the world to move onward with their
investigations.
There is one last aspect within the course book that does demand admission: I privilege
in this course book the discourse analysis under the French research and investigation with no
restrictions to any other modes of DAI must have failed to fully describe or detail some of the
texts analyzed but this conforms the adagio that DA has no definite steps, procedures or visions.
Because of this, in many ways the work with DA begs a companion, a partnership to elucidate
the method of analysis and improve certain of its aspects and problems.
Dear friends, our journey through discourse analysis has come to an end here now in this
space and time socially and historically determined where you and I, interlocutor and enunciator,
in dialogical communication institute YOU as the subject/interlocutor to talk to me during
the work with discourse analysis, its history and its main researchers. These were moments in
which we exchanged several speech acts, and many voices could be heard; they intervened in
our conversation, and allowed us to share speeches, enunciations, enunciates (locutionary act),
intentions (illocutionary act), reactions (perlocutionary act). All this ended up by helping us know
more and understand DA a little bit more.
In the By Way of Presentation of this course book I said that learning about DA would
not be as hard as you might have thought. I hope my premises have been achieved. I believe
discourse analysis content has somehow contributed to expand your knowledge of English.
Your job does not exhaust here, though, for DA is always a never-ending process: the more you
analyze, the more you will learn and understand it. Practice will make it perfect. But, remember:
unfortunately, perfection is as unreachable as a star.
3. 5 References
BEAUGRANDE, R. de. The Story of Discourse Analysis. (Available at: www.beaugrande.com/
StoryDiscAnal.htmEm cache - Similares
HARRIS, Z. S.; GOTTFRIED, M; RYCKMAN, T; MATTICK, P. Jr.; DALADIER, A.; HARRIS, T. N.; HARRIS
S.The Form of Information in Science: Analysis of an immunology sublanguage. Boston
Studies in the Philosophy of Science, p. 104. Dordrecht/Holland & Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, xvii, 590 pp. 1989.
DIJK,Teunvan. Critical Discourse Analysis. (Available at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teun_A._van_

Dijk. Em cache - Similares en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse analysis
HARRIS, Zellig S. A Theory of Language and Information: A mathematical approach. Oxford & New
York: Clarendon Press, xii, 428 pp.; illustr. 1991
KITTREDGE,Richard; LEHRBERGER, John.Sublanguage: Studies of language in restricted

semantic domains. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 1982.
MAINGUENEAU, Dominique. Genèses du discours. Bruxelles. Pierre Mardaga, 1984
MCHOUL, A.W.; GRACE, W.A Foucault primer: Discourse, power and the subject. New York
University Press, New York. 1997.(Available at: www.getcited.org/pub/100220774
PARKER, I. Discourse dynamics: critical analysis for social and individual psychology. London:
Routledge. 1992
POTTER, J. WETHERELL, M. Discourse and social psychology: beyond attitudes and behavior.
London: Sage. 1987
SAID, E. The world, the text and the critic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1993.
UNDERHILL, James W. (2012) (Available at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_analysis Em cache -

60 Similares. Access in: March, 2011.
Summary
Analysis means division, fragment. Then, to analyze is to divide a text into smaller units or
pieces, chunks, that is, a set of meaningful units.
Speech is the oral production of utterances. Some researchers use speech and discourse
interchangeably.
Discourse comes from Latin ‘discursus’ meaning “running to and from” and generally refers
to written or spoken communication. It is also a behavioral and verbal unit and has internal
relations to itself as well as to external other discourses. Discourse is an interactive entity whereas
text implies non-interactive monologue. Some linguists define discourse as a continuous stretch
of (especially spoken) language longer than a sentence, often constituting a coherent and
cohesive unit such as a lecture, joke, an argument, essay, or literary and non-literary narratives.
Discourses are not locally isolated; rather interdiscursivity takes part in the constitution of a
discourse.
Texts have cohesion through grammar and coherence trough semantics; discourse
coherence operates between underlying speech acts. But cohesion and coherence can both
operate in a given text or discourse. A text is an abstract theoretical construct which is realized in
discourse. In short, text is to discourse as sentence is to utterance. For some authors language is
actualized in the text, a basic communicative unit.
Text and discourse are sometimes used interchangeably; the former referring to the
linguistic product, and the latter implying the entire dynamics of the processes. In fact, novels,
as well as short conversations or groans might be equally and correctly named discourses. This
would suggest that the words text and discourse are dependently autonomous. Strange as it
may seem discourse emerges from language.
Discourse analysis refers to an approach adopted and developed by social constructionists

and whose focus is any form of written (an academic paper etc.) or spoken language
(conversation). It includes the sorts of tools and strategies used when one is engaged in
communication, such as slowing down speech for emphasis, using metaphors, and choosing
particular words to display affect, hate, love etc. While analysis more typical of modern linguistics
is chiefly concerned with the study of grammar, i.e., the smaller bits of language, such as in
phonology, morphology, semantics syntax, DA - also defined as the attempts to study and
analyze the organization of language above the level of sentences or clauses, that is, beyond
the linguistic structures -, is concerned with language in use/action in social contexts, and in
particular with interaction or dialogue between speakers.
The role of DA is to investigate and analyze discourse. The points of the investigation are
language, history and the subject. On her turn, discourse analysis would be word in motion,
language practice to be investigated. This discursive move gives language the power to arbitrate
about communicating or not because the relations among language, subjects and meanings
sometimes produce a multiplicity of unpredictable effects.
Discourse analysts study larger meaningful chunks (pieces of language) as they flow
together. Some discourse analysts firstly consider the larger discourse context in order
to understand the smaller one trying to find out how it affects the meaning of the whole
(discourse). The discourse analyst tries to identify categories, themes, ideas, views, roles, subjects,
intentions, identities and actions etc., within the text itself. Discourse analysts try to answer
questions such as how the discourse helps us understand the issue under study, how people
construct their own version of an event, and how they use discourse to maintain or construct
their own identity.
Enunciation, roughly speaking, refers to all the circumstances involving the making of and
production of an utterance.
61
The Instance of Enunciation is a model of dialogic organization that specifies the

process of constructing relations between enunciator-speaker/hearer-reader, in a certain given
discursive place and time. According to this definition the instance of Enunciation, when the
locutor enunciates he constitutes himself enunciator (I) and addresses a hearer (you) who is
simultaneously instituted as interlocutor to talk about something. Subjects in discourse include:
1. A locutor (L), who institutes himself as the enunciator (En) in and by the linguistic activity; 2. A
hearer, co-instituted in and by the linguistic activity as interlocutor, both instituting themselves
linguistic and cognitively at a discursive time (T) and in a space (S).
Texts are heterogenuous because you can detect the presence of many voices intervening
in their discourses. It is possible to distinguish two forms of presence of the Otherness (Alterity)
in discourse: constitutive language heterogeneity that points to the constitutive presence of a
primary discourse within a secondary discourse, and the manifest heterogeneity in which Alterity
can be shown in the linguistic materiality drawing upon specific linguistic indexes (quoted
discourse, self-corrections, words with quotation marks etc.).
Heterogenity of texts may be revealed clearly, explicitly or be a constitutive part of the

text or discourse and both contribute for a better understanding of the social communication
phenomenon. Discourse constitutively dialogs with a discourse of an Other and also with the
receptor I (subject) in discourse. Researchers give priority to the notion of constitutive language
heterogeneity and contrast it to the bakhtinian concept of dialogism. This leads us to infer that
the notion of subjectivity cannot be centered on one single ego while unique entity or on an
all-powerful-source of its word, but on a subject that is divisible as an atom, a particle of a social-
historical constructed whole, where it interacts with other discourses of which it appropriates or
positions (or is positioned) to elaborate its discourse.
Interdiscursivity has to do with the fact that in (almost) any text, there is interference of
different discourses which may be in accordance or in competition with each other. Every text
contains traces of other texts. Interdiscursivity – the presence of other voices in discourse - is
also referred to as polyphony, multivoicing and intertextuality, but not only under the traditional
view.
Discursive Formation is an expression coined by Foucault (1997) and adopted in discourse

analysis. It refers to “[...] a social formation characterized by a certain relation among social
classes which implies the existence of ideological and political positions [...] that are organized in
formations which keep among themselves relations of antagonism, alliance or domination and
that condition what must or may be said. Those formations reveal in discourse the individuals’
religious, political, social and economical positions, their ideology.
Speech Act is an action a speaker performs in saying an utterance or writing/producing a

sentence.
Pragmatic Speech Acts Theory - written by John Austin (1962) and in which he claims
that when one utters a sentence he performs an action, he does something with his speech
act. Example: ‘I nominate John Burst President of the company’; ‘I sentence you to ten years
imprisonment’; ‘I promise to pay you back’, the actions that the sentence describes (nominating,
sentencing, promising) is performed by the sentence itself; the speech is the act. The act
performed by means of language functions such as: defining, writing, reading, counseling,
warning, cancelling, advising, promising etc., actions through which you DO/PERFORM
something. Speech act analysis asks NOT WHAT FORM the utterance takes but what it DOES. For
example, on saying “I now pronounce you man and wife” enacts a marriage.
The speech acts are: a. Locutionary act (act of saying) - the uttering of words; the social act
one makes by using language structures (grammar, syntax and lexicon); b. illocutionary act (what
one does in saying) – a particular intention in making the utterance. The locutor’s intention can
be to state a fact, show surprise, to ask for an umbrella and advise to stay home. c. Perlocutionary
act (what one does by saying) - the production of a particular effect on the addressee/
interlocutor. This classification (locutions, illocutions and perlocutions) serve to demonstrate how
meanings are constructed in the intersubjective relations which are marked by the context of the
interactive event and materialized in language.
62
To do DA you must always keep in mind that a discourse analyst is mainly concerned with:
(1) Language use beyond the boundaries of a sentence or utterance. (2) The interrelationships
between language, society and pragmatics. (3) The interactive or dialogic properties of everyday
communication. Much of the fascination of DA derives from the realization that the boundaries
of linguistics are being redrawn. From DA advent on there is no returning to the patterns of rigor
and explanation set by structural linguistics created by Saussure, Bloomfield and Chomsky.
Identity is an entity generally defined under the prism it is approached. One is the
essencialist point of view which defends the existence of an authentic identity, true solid essence
whereas the non-essencialist view advocates the idea of mobility and fluidness of identity, as a
discursive socio-historical construction during which meanings produced in discourse sound like
historical and social meanings interdiscursively acting.
Identity researchers say people do not possess only one identity because it is plural
in that it incorporates a contextual variety of factors including the historical, linguistic and
cultural during the construction not of what we are but of what we have become. Identities
have not to do with questions as ‘whom we are’ or ‘where did we come from’, but with ‘whom
can we become’, ‘how we have been represented’ and ‘how such representation affects the form
with which we can represent ourselves. From this assertive we can infer that the construction
of the identity is a going-to be process that constructs, de-constructs and re-constructs itself
according to our representations. Still, the way we take our positions are constitutive of our
identity.
Other investigators advocate that identity is born from the moment we take conscience of
the differences between us and the others. The conclusion is that the construction of identity
is not an individual but collective process which suffers internal and external influences from
the dialogic relations set with other subjects and crossed by the discursive formations which are
built during our life long and co-exist in the interdiscursivity.
Sociologically speaking, the personal dimension is fundamental for the construction
of identity because the former refers to subjectivity, the subject’s individuality, involving
notional aspects such as conscience and the self, whereas the latter defines features capable of
identifying the subject externally. Both are unconsciously built in a constant process of (trans)
formation. For these reasons, researchers claim that each generation builds its social identity on
the grounds of the preceding generations’ behavior and making use of their identity strategies.
CDA is a general label for a special approach to the study of text and speech emerging
specifically from critical linguistics and, in general, from socio-politically conscious and
oppositional way of investigating language and communication. It essentially deals with
oppositional structures and strategies of elite (social, political, political, economic and religious)
discourse and their cognitive and social conditions, and mainly consequences, as well as the
discourses of resistance against such domination. It goes beyond usual methodological criteria
of observational, descriptive and explanatory adequacy. CDA constitutes an interdisciplinary
approach to the study of discourse.
Fairclough and CDA- The work of Norman Fairclough is central for CDA since the former
emphasizes the necessity of establishing methods for empirical investigation of relations
between discursive and non-discursive practices. In this sense it distinguishes itself mainly
from discourse theory. For this researcher discourse is a communicative act, but also a
social practice. Discourses constitute social phenomena, but are also constituted by social
phenomena in the form of social (or political) practice. Any use of language (a communicative
action) therefore consists of a discursive practice where discourses are produced or consumed;
and a social practice or an institutional context of which a communicative action is a part. The
communicative action can draw on (consume) or create (produce) discourses, but will always be
part of an order of discourse, where several discourses are articulated simultaneously.
Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis distinguishes between discourse and institutions
as two different types of social phenomena. It studies how discourse and institution interact
in the constitution of a social world, and how discursive practices are institutionalized or are
moved from being linguistic utterances to set conditions for stable social relations. CDA also has
a political aim: It looks for how a discourse limits our understanding of the world (i.e. function
as an ideology) and also how they contain several competing discourses and, therefore, also the
possibility of dominant ideologies be contested.
63
Irony consists in giving the impression that you praise what you really intend to condemn,
that is, in saying the opposite of what you truly want to say. Irony is especially at the risk of
misunderstandings and it is context that will determine its real meaning. With irony affirmation
is present in the enunciates and negation will be hidden in the enunciation. So, irony conceals,
truth in the enunciation, and you cannot see it, but you know it is there; however, it is explicit
(denuded, affirmed) in the enunciates.
64
Evaluation Activities (EA)

◄ Figure 32: Photo of
Malcolm X (1925 – 1965), born Malcolm Little and also Malcolm X.
known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, was an African American Source: en.wikipedia.org/
Muslim minister and human rights activist. To his admirers, he wiki/Malcolm_X.
was a courageous advocate for the rights of African Americans.
Detractors accused him of preaching racism, black supremacy,
anti-Semitism, and violence. He has been called one of the
greatest and most influential African Americans in history.
(Available at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X.)
Text 1 – Part of an address delivered by Malcolm X to

his black American brothers.
´Be peaceful be courteous, obey the law, respect

everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him
to the cemetery´ (Malcolm X).
1. Read the following text then tick (√) the correct alternative for the questions.
In the text, you can detect the presence of the following subjects, EXCEPT:
( ) A) the law
( ) B) Malcolm X.
( ) C) the readership.
( ) D) the enunciator.
2. The text mainly denudes __________relations.
( ) A) ideological
( ) B) religious
( ) C) psychological
( ) D) critical
3. The discourse reveals that Malcolm X stimulates ___________ when necessary.
( ) A) violence/killing
( ) B) courtesy/obeying
( ) C) peace/loving
( ) D) law/respecting
4. The illocutionary act in Malcolm’s discourse points towards ________.
( ) A) react violently in your own physical defense.

( ) B) fight against the ones who obey and respect the law.
( ) C) send to the cemetery the ones who respect you.
( ) D) react peacefully towards violence and offense.
5. What composes enunciation in this text is
( ) A) the information about Malcolm X and the time in which he lived.

( ) B) an enunciate metaphorically and metonymically read.
( ) C) the fact that violence solves the problems of racism in America.
( ) D) the duo peace and courtesy working together.
65
Text 2 – This text was uttered by the most important comic

actor, music composer writer and cineast Charles Chaplin (1889-
1977), the English genius of silent movies who lived in America for
years.
‘Life is a theatrical piece that allows for no rehearsals. So

sing, laugh, dance, cry and live each moment intensely before
Figure 33: Charles ► the curtains fall and the show is finished with no applauses’.
Chaplin's photo. (Charles Chaplin).
Source: frasesfamosas.
com.br/de/charles.chaplin.
html
6. Enunciation is composed by
( ) A) the introduction announcing the text.

( ) B) the author’s illocutionary act announcing his intention.
( ) C) the Locutionary acts represented by the enunciates.
( ) D) the text final message.
7. The semantic phenomena that sustain Chaplin’s discourse are
( ) A) metaphors
( ) B) comparison
( ) C) metonymy
( ) D) synonymy
8. Each linguistic phenomenon used in question 7 corresponds to something in the text.

Tick (√) the alternative that DO NOT match:
( ) A) rehearsal-life
( ) B) curtain- death
( ) C) show- life
( ) D) applauses- accomplishments
9. Such linguistic phenomena convey the idea that you should
( ) A) enjoy life fully before it ends with no realizations.

( ) B) not perform a theatrical play that is worth applauding.
( ) C) sing, laugh, dance and cry with no regrets.
( ) D) not let the curtain fall before the performance is over.
10. Complete the enunciates below with the correct option.
The text discourse reveals ______ relations available at Chaplin’s time.
( ) A) social
( ) B) political
( ) C) religious
( ) D) psychological
66
References
Basic
AUSTIN, John L. Speech Acts Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
AUSTIN, John Langshaw. How to do things with words.Oxford, England: Ed. J. O. Urmson.
Clarendon, 1962.
AUSTIN, John. Langshaw. Quando dizer é fazer: palavras e ação. Porto Alegre: Artes Cênicas,
1990. (Tradução do livro How to do things with words).
AUTHIER-REVUZ, Jacqueline. Hétérogenéité montrée et hétérogéneité constitutive; éléments

pour une approche de láutre dans lê discours., in DRLAV. Revue de linguistique, Paris : Centre
de recherches de lÙniversité de Paris, VIII, n. 26, 1982.
ALTHUSSER, L. P. Ideologia e aparelhos ideológicos de Estado. Tradução. J. J. Moura Ramos.

Lisboa: Presença, Martins Fontes, 1974 (título original: Idéologie et appareils ideéologiques
d’Ètat,1970).
BAKHTIN. M. Mikhail. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Edited and translated by Caryl

Emerson. Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press. (1984).
BENVENISTE, Émile. Problemas de Lingüística Geral Campinas: Pontes Editora da Universidade

Estadual de Campinas, SP. 1988. I
BENVENISTE, Émile. La nature des pronoms, problèmes de linguistique générale, I. Paris :

Gallimard, 1966, p 251-257. v.1
BENVENISTE, Émile. La philosophie analytique et le langage, problèmes de linguistique

générale. Paris: Gallimard, 1966, p. 267-276. v.1
BENVENISTE Émile. La forme et le sens dans le langage, problèmes de linguistique

générale. Paris: Gallimard, 1967, pp 215-238. v.2
BENVENISTE, Émile. (1970), L’appareil formel de l’énonciation, Problèmes de linguistique

générale.Paris: Gallimard, 1974, p. 79-88. v.2
CHARAUDEAU, P.; MAINGUENEAU, D. Dicionário de análise do discurso. Coordenação da

tradução, Fabiana Komesu. São Paulo: Contexto, 2004.
FAIRCLOUGH, Norman. Discourse and Social Change. Brasília, UNB: 2001.
FOUCAULT, M. The Archaeology of Knowledge.Trans. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
1969.
PÊCHEUX, A propósito da Análise Automática do Discurso: atualizações e perspectivas. In:

GADET, F.; HAK, T. (Orgs.). Por uma análise automática do discurso: uma introdução à obra de
Michel Pêcheux. Campinas, SP: Editora da UNICAMP, 1975.
SEARLE, John Rogers. Intencionalidade. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 1995.
67
Complementary
BARTHES, Roland & DE SAUSSURE, Ferdinand. Useful Links on Discourse Analysis. (Available
at:<www.swan.ac.uk/sel/theolink.htm>. Access in: February, 2011.
BROWN, Gillian; YULE, George.Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1983.
COOK, G. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
FIORIN, José Luiz. Elementos de Análise de Discurso. 13 ed. – São Paulo: Contexto, 2005.
KRISTEVA Julia; FOUCAULT, Michel; DERRIDA, Jacques; BAKHTIN, <http://www.ich.pucminas.br/

posletras/AD%20historia,linguageme%20acao.pdf>. Acesso em: 17 set. 2010.
MARI, Hugo. Os lugares do sentido. Campinas, SP: Mercado das Letras, 2008.
PÊCHEUX, M. Discurso: Estrutura ou Acontecimento. In: Langages, “Analyse de

discoursnouveaux parcours: hommage à Michel Pêcheux”. Campinas, n. 81, 1990.
PÊCHEUX, Michel. Análise do Discurso: três épocas. In: GADET F.; HAK, T. (Orgs.) Por uma análise
automática do Discurso: uma introdução à obra de Michel Pêcheux. Trad. de Eni P. Orlandi.
Campinas: Unicamp, 1997, p 61-151.
PÊCHEUX, Michel. Délimitations, retournements et déplacements. L’homme et lasociété, Paris,

n.63-64, p. 53-69, 1982 (tradução brasileira : Delimitações, Inversões, Deslocamentos. Cadernos
de Estudos Lingüísticos, Campinas, n. 19, p. 7-24, 1990.
PÊCHEUX, Michel. Délimitations, retournements et déplacements. L’homme et lasociété, Paris,

n.63-64, p. 53-69, 1982 (tradução brasileira : Delimitações, Inversões, Deslocamentos. Cadernos
de Estudos Lingüísticos, Campinas, n. 19, p. 7-24, 1990.
PÊCHEUX, Michel. Semântica e discurso: uma crítica à afirmação do óbvio. 2. ed., Campinas:
Editora da UNICAMP, 1995.
PÊCHEUX, Michel. Sob o pseudônimo de Thomas Herbert. Observações para uma teoria geral
das ideologias. Tradução brasileira de Carolina M. R. Zuccolillo, Eni P. Orlandi e José H. Nunes.
Campinas, RUA, n. 1, 1995.
SUPPLEMENTARY
MARI, Hugo; MACHADO, Ida; MELLO, Renato (Org.), Análise do discurso em perspectivas. Belo
Horizonte: Núcleo de Análise do Discurso da FALE/UFMG, 2003.
MCCARTHY, M. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers.Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress, 1991.
MORIN, E. A noção de sujeito. In:. SCHNITMAN, Dora F. (Org.). Novos paradigmas, cultura e
subjetividade. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas, 1996.
Sites
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_and_Hobbes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourseanalysis.
grammar.about.com/od/tz/g/turntakingterm.htmWardle to Mr. Pickwick in The Pickwick Papers

by Charles Dickens (1836)
68 wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_and_Hobbes. Access: July, 2007.

www.bartleby.com › ...
www.discourses.org/.../Aims%20of%20Critical%...
www.discourses.org/.../Teun%20A%20van%20Dijk%20-...Accessin: June 2011
www.eamonfulcher.com/discoureanalysis.html-
www.enotes.com› ... ›Hamlet Discussion.
www.imdb.com/title/tt0099726/Em cache -
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discourse.
www.photobucket.com/images/robert%20frost/
www.scribd.com/Discourse-and-Social-Chang
www.teachingenglish.org.uk/.../non-verbal-com.
www-rohan.sdsu.edu/.../index.ht...- Estados Unidos. Em cache, ).
Films/ séries/clips
Films
Avatar
Benjamin Butler
Series
Married with Children
Two and a Half Men
Clips
Gesture of Love
Linguistics Virtual Library
http://www.dominiopublico.gov.br
Introdução à linguística UAB/Unimontes
http://www.teses.usp.br
Virtual Dictionary
Foreign Language Dictionary
Available at: http://www.inglesonline.com.br
http://www.wordreference.com
69

Análise Do Discurso

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Análise Do Discurso

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Helena Maria Gramiscelli Magalhães

Montes Claros/MG - 2012

REITOR REVISÃO TÉCNICA

Catalogação: Biblioteca Central Professor Antônio Jorge - Unimontes

Presidente Geral da CAPES Chefe do Departamento de Ciências Sociais

Diretor de Educação a Distância da CAPES Chefe do Departamento de Geociências

Governador do Estado de Minas Gerais Chefe do Departamento de História

Vice-Governador do Estado de Minas Gerais Chefe do Departamento de Comunicação e Letras

Secretário de Estado de Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior Chefe do Departamento de Educação

Vice-Reitora da Unimontes Coordenador do Curso a Distância de Ciências Biológicas

Pró-Reitora de Ensino Coordenadora do Curso a Distância de Ciências Sociais

Diretor do Centro de Educação a Distância Coordenadora do Curso a Distância de Geografia

Coordenadora da UAB/Unimontes Coordenadora do Curso a Distância de História

Coordenadora Adjunta da UAB/Unimontes Coordenadora do Curso a Distância de Letras/Espanhol

Diretor do Centro de Ciências Humanas - CCH Coordenadora do Curso a Distância de Letras/Inglês

Chefe do Departamento de Artes

1.2 Discourse and Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.3 Discourse analysis(DA) and discourse analysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.4 Types of discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

1.5 Theory of Enunciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1.6 Language heterogeneity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1.7 Speech Act Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2.1 Why discourse analysis? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2.2 How to do discourse analysis? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2.3 Additional information on discourse, text, speech and language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

2.5 Critical discourse analysis (CDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

2. 7 Discourse analyses of distinctive types of texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.2 PowerPoint slides: history of DA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

3.3 Irony and discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

3.4 By Way of Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Evaluation Activities (EA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

FUCK! PETE, IS THAT YOU???

See that the cartoonist uses two components of

How many subjects can you detect in this cartoon?

U-R-G-E-N-T: LAST NEWS ABOUT LYBYA CRISIS.

AS SOON AS I GET FURTHER NEWS, EVERYBODY, I WILL KEEP ON INFORMING YOU!

UNIT 1: Who is afraid of terminology?

1.6.2 Social, ideological and discursive formations.

Unit 2: Who is scared of Discourse Analysis?

UNIT 3: What does history say about DA?

CLUES TO LEARN MORE TASKS GLOSSARY

1.2 Discourse and Text

Available at: www.merriam-

1.3 Discourse analysis (DA) and

1.4 Types of discourse

1.4.1 Written and spoken discourse

Now let us discuss another meaning for

Answers: Subjects: ___________________________________________________________________________

Author’s intention: ___________________________________________________________________________

As talking is generally spontaneous, it may result in mistakes and (over)repetition,

1.5 Theory of Enunciation

Figure 8: Illustration of ► The yellow subject is the

1.5.2 Enunciates and utterances

Figure 13: Girl saying a

inescapably meaning is constructed dialogically and polyphonically during interaction, and

1.6.1 Polyphony and Interdiscursivity: the subjects of/in discourse.

1.6.2 Social, Ideological and discursive formations (DFs)

SIGN1-Please; use the toilet, not the POOL.

Now answer: What type of analysis was done?

SIGN 2-Pool for members only.

Now answer: What type analysis was done?

◄ Figure 14: Illustration of

◄ Figure 16: People