LINGUISTIC DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Linguistic discourse analysis (LDA) refers to a resolutely language- and sign-based approach to discourse(s) which addresses linguistic questions and which draws on linguistic concepts and methods. On the one hand, LDA is critically motivated, such as critical discourse analysis that stands in the tradition of Critical Theory (Frankfurt School) and that examines discourses with a view to linguistic mechanisms of power as well as hegemonic strategies. On the other hand, LDA has a more descriptive analytical orientation, aiming at investigating linguistic and conceptual constructions of reality and aiming at determining semantic deep structures in discourse as well as patterns and knowledge relevant to understanding. For this purpose, semantic frames and grammatical constructions may be used as analytical categories.

Like other approaches to discourse – such as sociological or political discourse analyses – LDA can be put into perspective in a theoretical-epistemological, in a subject- or theme-related and in a methodical analytical sense. In LDA, there is neither a uniform definition of the notion of ‘discourse’, nor a generally binding theoretical framework. However, certain schools of thought have become established.

Besides the (former) Anglo-American understanding of discourse analysis as conversation analysis, approaches based on Foucault’s originally non-linguistic conception of discourse as a net-like organization of utterances (énoncés) became established in continental Europe, where key concepts such as the episteme have been operationalized within the field of LDA.    Linguistic approaches also focus on pragmatic or semiotic aspects of discourse.

Apart from (mass) media or thematic discourses, specialized discourses are also examined. Besides studies focusing on single or individual texts, the objects of analysis are generally larger text corpora, that consist, for instance, of press texts on a specific (e. g. political) topic, that cover a specific time period, and that have semantic and intertextual relationships with each other. Such ‘virtual corpora’ represent an excerpt of a certain discourse that can be analyzed at different levels. Corpus linguistic methods help to analyze large amounts of data, and to uncover ‘patterns of language use’ that function as indicators of socially-shared knowledge structures. Its proximity to cultural linguistics and its semantic orientation makes discourse linguistics relevant for cultural studies, social science and political science.

Angermuller, Johannes. 2014. Poststructuralist Discourse Analysis. Subjectivity in Enunciative Pragmatics. Basingstoke, Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Angermuller, Johannes. 2011a. “Heterogeneous Knowledge. Trends in German Discourse Analysis against an International Background.” Journal of Multicultural Discourses Vol. 6 No. 2. 121-136.

Angermuller, Johannes. 2011b. “From the Many Voices to the Subject Positions in Anti-Globalization Discourse. Enunciative Pragmatics and the Polyphonic Organization of Subjectivity.” Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 43. 2992-3000.

Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse. A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bubenhofer, Noah. 2022. “Corpus Linguistics in Discourse Analysis: No Bodies and no Practices?”, Zeitschrift für Diskursforschung Vol. 2/2022. 195-204.

Busse, Dietrich. 2022. “Historical semantic and linguistic history of thinking.” In Language and Emotion. An international Handbook. Volume 1, edited by Schiewer, Gesine Lenore / Altarriba, Jeanette / Ng Bee, Chin. Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 324-338. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110347524

Busse, Dietrich. 1993. “Semantic Strategies as Means of Politics: Linguistic Approaches to the Analysis of ‘semantic struggles’.” In Tracing the Semiotic Boundaries of Politics, edited by Pertti Ahonen. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 121-128.

Dijk, Teun A. van. 2009a. Society and Discourse. How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dijk, Teun A. van. 2009b. “Critical Discourse Studies. A Sociocognitive Approach.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by Wodak, Ruth / Meyer, Michael. London: Sage. 62-86.

Dijk, Teun A. van. 2008. “Critical Discourse Analysis and Nominalization: Problem or Pseudo-Problem?”, Discourse & Society, Vol. 19 No. 6. 821-828.

Fairclough, Norman. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language (2^nd ED). London: Longman.

Fairclough, Norman. 1992. “Discourse and Text: Linguistic Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis.” Discourse & Society, Vol. 3 No. 2. 193-217.

Foucault, Michel. 1989. Archaeology of Knowledge, translated by A. M. Sheridan Smith [first published 1969]. London, New York: Routledge.

Foucault, Michel. 1981. “The Order of Discourse”, translated by Ian McLeod [first published 1971]. In Untying the Text: A Post-Structuralist Reader, edited by Robert Young. Boston, London, Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 51-78.

Harris, Zellig S. 1952. “Discourse Analysis.” Language, Vol. 28. 1-30.

Teubert, Wolfgang. 2005. “My Version of Corpus Linguistics.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, Vol. 10 No. 1. 1-13.

Williams, Glyn. 1999. French Discourse Analysis. The Method of Post-Structuralism. London: Routledge.

Ziem, Alexander. 2017. “From discourses to corpora: (lexical) meaning-making as a challenge for cognitive semantics.” In A blend of MaLT: Selected contributions to the Methods and Linguistic Theories Symposium 2015, edited by Christ, Hanna / Klenovšak, Daniel / Sönning, Lukas / Werner, Valentin. Bamberg: Bamberg University Press. 1-25.

Ziem, Alexander. 2014. Frames of Understanding in Text and Discourse: Theoretical Foundations and Descriptive Applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.