Pulkit Sharma

Dr Santosh Kumar
BENG 111
19 September 2019
Report: Discourse Analysis – Going beyond text
Discourse analysis is arguably the most used research methodology used by researchers
today when analysing any text, it is therefore important for students in English studies to
familiarise themselves with it at the onset of their course. The presentation was taken up by group 6
on 18th of September and was reviewed by Dr Santosh Kumar. Discourse analysis is quite difficult
to explain not just because of the complexity of the approach but also since Discourse is conceived
differently by different set of sociolinguists. The group decided to use Michel Foucault’s theories
as footing for their presentation though other philosophers and anthropologists were mentioned as
well.
The presentation had 8 speakers, the introduction to Discourse Analysis was taken up by
Apeksha who gave the general introduction to the presentation and laid the general framework of
the presentation. Tanwarat was next the presenter who gave the understanding of discourse on
which the rest of the presentation was going to build upon. Discourse was explained as system of
thoughts that makes writing and speaking possible which is often in a symbiotic relation with
power as Foucault was himself primary concerned with how power functions.
To avoid limiting the general understanding of discourse in a very foucauldian way, Kavya
came next to talk about other varieties of discourse. These were Ethnomethodology(understanding
social order through ethnographic studies), Interactional Sociolinguistics(understanding language
from an anthropologists perspective), Discursive Psychology(application of ideas issued in
psychology), Critical Discourse Analysis(view of language as social practice), Bakhtinian
Research(treating language as dialogic). This marked the end of the first half of the presentation
which laid the foundation of the theoretical framework required for practical application
ofdisocurse analysis that the second half of the presentation focussed on.
Vrinda talked about the levels of discourse analysis that can be carried out. Disourse analysis by
its nature is vast as it mixes elements of anthropology, linguistic, psychology and philosophy and
therefore it is often very overwhelming for any researcher to carry it out on an extended text; hence
it is advised to use discourse analysis on brief text. Discourse also demands reflexivity and critical
thinking from the researcher. Discourse analysis today is open to every text. This point was
reaffirmed by Malvika who used example of scientific narratives being subjected to discourse
analysis. As established earlier, Michel Foucault’s work in discourse was taken up by the group to
construct their framework of presentation. Foucault understood power not as a structure
concentrated but as dispersed meta-state of knowledge which act as a regime of truth. In discourse
analysis the major concern of a researcher is recognising how this regulating power which is also
relative constructs our understanding of truth through common sense. These points were explained
by Poulami. The last portion of the presentation was a slice of technological invasion in research
methodologies which was taken up by Angkit who talked extensively about programs in
development which can aid a researcher(or replace?) in discourse analysis. Though this technology
is still in its embryonic stage of being, it is still an interesting development with wide range of
application in the future.
 This marked the end of presentation. Discourse analysis can be daunting for first year students
as it involves ideas which have a rich historical background in fields of philosophy and social
anthropology however it is important for us to introduce discourse at an early stage as its uses are
vast and highly inter disciplinary in nature. The group did a good job of keeping the presentation
simple, clear yet not robbed of meaning and essence of discourse. A brief remark needs to be given
on the visuals used during the presentation which were simple yet effective. Simple background
and animations were used to achieve it. The group must be commended for it. I would like to thank
the group for their availability and readiness to share information for the making of this report. No
ideological bias was intended.