discourse (n.)

A term used in LINGUISTICS to refer to a continuous stretch of (especially spoken) LANGUAGE larger than a SENTENCE – but, within this broad notion, several different applications may be found. At its most general, a discourse is a behavioral UNIT which has a pre-theoretical status in linguistics: it is a set of UTTERANCES which constitute any recognizable SPEECH event (no reference being made to its linguistic STRUCTURING, if any), e.g. a conversation, a joke, a sermon, an interview. A classification of discourse functions, with particular reference to type of subject-matter, the situation, and the behavior of the speaker, is often carried out in SOCIOLINGUISTIC studies, e.g. distinguishing dialogues v. monologues, or (more specifically) oratory, ritual, insults, narrative, and so on. Several linguists have attempted to discover linguistic regularities in discourses (discourse analysis or DA), using GRAMMATICAL, PHONOLOGICAL and SEMANTIC criteria (e.g. COHESION, ANAPHORA, inter-sentence CONNECTIVITY). Special attention has been focused on discourse markers – sequentially dependent elements which demarcate units of speech, such as oh, well, and I mean. It is now plain that there exist important linguistic dependencies between sentences, but it is less clear how far these dependencies are sufficiently systematic to enable linguistic units higher than the sentence to be established. The methodology and theoretical orientation of discourse analysis (with its emphasis on WELL-FORMEDNESS and RULES governing the sequence of permissible units, in both spoken and written TEXTS) are often contrasted with those of CONVERSATION ANALYSIS. The term discourse grammar has also come to be used by those seeking to develop an alternative to the GENERATIVIST conception of an autonomous FORMAL grammar, which would incorporate principles of a FUNCTIONAL, COMMUNICATIVE kind.

Some linguists adopt a broader, PSYCHOLINGUISTIC perspective in studying discourse, which they view as a dynamic process of expression and comprehension governing the performance of people during linguistic interaction. Some adopt a sociolinguistic perspective, in which the purpose or function of the discourse is emphasized. An even broader perspective distinguishes critical discourse analysis, a branch of CRITICAL LINGUISTICS which studies the relationship between discourse events and sociopolitical and cultural factors. These emphases distance the subject from ‘TEXT linguistics’, when this is seen as the formal account of the linguistic principles governing the structure of texts. But there is considerable overlap between the domains of discourse analysis and text linguistics (for example, the notion of cohesion is prominent in both), and any attempt at a principled distinction would be premature. In semantics, some use is made of the term universe of discourse (or domain of discourse), viz. the range of entities, topics, situations, etc., within which a particular speech event makes reference. In this sense, the universe of discourse of sermons, for example, will be predictably different (usually) from the universe of discourse of commercial advertising.