Discourse Analysis

On This Page:

What is Discourse Analysis?

Discourse analysis is a qualitative research method used to study written and spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real-life situations.

It goes beyond analyzing just the words and sentences to establish a deeper understanding of how language is used.

Instead, it examines the linguistic content (what is being said) and the way language is used in a given text to convey meaning in different social settings.

Instead of simply focusing on the literal meanings of words and sentences, discourse analysis explores the deeper meaning behind how language is used in specific social contexts.

This method of research analyzes the intended meaning behind the words and phrases within a specific context, rather than just their definition, frequency, or surface-level themes.

It helps researchers understand the underlying values, assumptions, and intentions embedded in language.

Language helps people share thoughts and ideas, build relationships, establish culture, influence others, and create meaning.

Discourse analysis, therefore, provides a lens through which researchers can view the many functions of language, including shaping power structures, constructing societal narratives, and molding opinions

Researchers use discourse analysis to study:

How language creates and maintains social identities: Researchers can analyze how linguistic choices contribute to identity formation and expression by scrutinizing language use in diverse settings.
How language creates and maintains power relations: This involves analyzing how language is used to reinforce or challenge power structures and reveal unspoken assumptions and biases related to social hierarchies. For instance, analyzing how politicians use language to construct social divisions.
How language is shaped by and reflects social and cultural values: Discourse analysis recognizing that meaning is shaped by social and cultural factors. It explores how language use reflects cultural values and how those values, in turn, influence language interpretation.
How language constructs and maintains social reality: Discourse analysis recognizes that language does not merely reflect reality but actively constructs and maintains it. It investigates how individuals utilize shared linguistic resources to create specific versions of social phenomena and realities.
How language can be used to persuade, inform, or entertain: Discourse analysts recognize that language is inherently action-oriented, meaning people use it to accomplish particular interactional goals, which can include persuading, informing, or entertaining. For example, studying how politicians use persuasive language in political discourse to win elections.

Key Concepts

1. Context

The social, cultural, and historical factors that influence communication play a crucial role in discourse analysis.

The context of a conversation shapes the meaning of the language used, even if the words themselves are the same.

For instance, a chat with a police officer differs significantly from a casual conversation with a close friend, highlighting the importance of context in shaping language use.

2. Structure

Discourse analysis examines how language is organized and structured to convey meaning. This involves studying elements such as:

Turn-taking in conversations.
The overall organization of interactions.
How sequences of language are organized.

3. Statements

By dissecting individual statements within a text, discourse analysis seeks to understand how specific language choices contribute to the overall meaning.

Researchers employ various “lenses” or “tools” to examine these statements, such as those outlined by Gee, which help uncover the ways in which language communicates, persuades, and constructs meaning.

4. Shape Reality

One of the key insights of discourse analysis is that language is not neutral; instead, it actively shapes our understanding of the world and influences social reality.

Through language, we construct our identities, relationships, and knowledge systems. Discourse analysis helps researchers understand how this process works in different contexts.

5. Power Dynamics

Discourse analysis is often used to uncover how language can reflect and perpetuate power imbalances in society.

For example, critical discourse analysis (CDA) examines how language can be used to assert dominance, control narratives, and marginalize certain groups.

CDA aims to deconstruct these power dynamics and challenge social inequality by bringing them to light.

Types of Discourse Analysis

There are two primary approaches to discourse analysis: language-in-use and socio-political.

The language-in-use approach focuses on the technical aspects of language, such as how grammar, syntax, and phonology are used to create meaning. The socio-political approach examines how language reflects normalized or repressive power dynamics.

1. Language-in-use Approaches to Discourse Analysis

Language-in-use approaches to discourse analysis concentrate on the linguistic features of language, including:

Grammar
Syntax
Phonology
Structure

The aim is to understand how these aspects of language are used and manipulated in social contexts. This approach recognizes that language does not merely reflect a pre-existing social reality but actively constructs it.

For example, how conversational markers (e.g., turn-taking, overlap, exhalation, disagreement) are used to negotiate meaning and build knowledge within conversations.

“Language-in-use” is sometimes used synonymously with “pragmatics,” which refers to the study of how context influences the meaning of language.

This includes analyzing how listeners interpret the meaning of words and phrases based on the social context.

Analyzing language in use involves two key tasks:

Utterance-type meaning: Studying the typical communicative functions of language forms (e.g., how a specific grammatical structure is generally used).
Utterance-token/Situated meaning: Examining how the meaning of language forms varies depending on the specific context in which they are used.

However, the terms “discourse analysis” and “pragmatics” are not always used in the same way.

Sometimes, “discourse analysis” is reserved for analyzing how sentences in a spoken or written text work together to create meaning and define different genres (e.g., dialogues, narratives, reports).

This distinction emphasizes the role of language in shaping and being shaped by social situations.

When analyzing discourse, it’s important to consider the interplay of various linguistic elements, cultural influences, and social dynamics.

Researchers use a systematic approach, carefully examining spoken conversations, written texts, and visual media to understand how language functions within a particular context.

This involves going beyond literal meanings to uncover the hidden dimensions and power dynamics embedded in communication.

Key Concepts Related to Language-in-use:

Context of Situation: The specific circumstances surrounding language use, including the relationships among participants, communicative purposes, and the mode of communication (spoken or written).
Register: The variety of language used in a particular context of situation, reflecting the field (social activity), tenor (relationships between interactants), and mode (role of language).
Genre: A recognizable and recurring communicative event characterized by its purpose, structure, and typical linguistic features (e.g., research articles, political speeches). Genres can be analyzed as a specific form of discourse analysis, focusing on recurring language use patterns.
Intertextuality: The way in which one text incorporates, references, or alludes to other texts, either directly or indirectly. This highlights the interconnectedness of texts and how meaning is constructed through these connections.

Example Methods

Conversation analysis: Focuses on the structure and patterns of spoken interaction. For example, this approach can be used to study how people manage turn-taking and negotiate roles during conversations. Conversation analysis often uses transcripts of conversations to examine how conversational markers, such as pauses or specific phrases, contribute to the conversation’s flow and meaning.
Narrative analysis: Looks at how individuals construct their identities and experiences through storytelling. Researchers using this approach might analyze personal accounts of homelessness to understand how individuals integrate their experiences with societal narratives.

2. Socio-political approaches to discourse analysis

Socio-political approaches to discourse analysis are more philosophical and mainly concerned with how language constructs and sustains power dynamics in society. Although politics is a central focus, these approaches apply more broadly.

These approaches move beyond analyzing just the linguistic elements to consider the social and political implications of language use:

Critical discourse analysis

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) examines how language is used to create, maintain, and challenge power relations in society. CDA is particularly concerned with issues of social justice, inequality, and oppression.

CDA is inspired by philosopher Michel Foucault, who argued that language reflects how power is used in society.

Critical discourse analysis researchers believe that language isn’t neutral; it reflects power dynamics in society.

It aims to uncover the hidden agendas and biases that are present in everyday conversations and official communications.

Assumptions

CDA recognizes that language isn’t just about communication; it shapes our understanding of the world and how we see reality.
It explores how language can both reinforce and challenge the power of those in dominant positions.
CDA often focuses on institutional discourse—the language used in settings like schools, courts, and the media—because these institutions often reflect and perpetuate broader social power dynamics.
CDA examines the language used in media, like news coverage, to see how those in power might be misusing their position or how inequality, dominance, and pushback are portrayed in discussions of social and political topics.

For example

CDA might be used to study how politicians use language to divide people in a campaign speech.
It could also be used to examine how medical language can reinforce the authority of doctors over patients.

CDA researchers pay close attention to who has control over communication:

They look at who gets to decide the time and place of a conversation, who is allowed to speak, and what topics are considered acceptable.
They also study how grammatical choices and the structure of conversations can reflect and reinforce power dynamics. For example, in some situations, people in less powerful positions may have to speak differently than those in positions of authority.

CDA argues that understanding these subtle ways that language shapes our perceptions of power is crucial for challenging social inequality.

Discourse analysis offers a powerful lens for critically examining the intricate relationship between language, meaning, and social life.

Other examples of critial discourse analysis

Feminist discourse analysis: Focuses specifically on how language constructs and perpetuates gender norms and ideologies. Researchers utilizing this approach might study how beauty advertisements reinforce specific beauty standards and how consumers engage with or resist these representations.
Foucauldian discourse analysis: Inspired by the work of philosopher Michel Foucault, examines how discourse shapes knowledge, power, and social practices. This approach emphasizes the relationship between language and power, exploring how discourse constructs our understanding of the world and influences our actions.
Ethnography of communication: Rooted in anthropology, studies communication within cultural contexts, examining the rules and norms that govern interactions within specific communities. This approach involves immersing oneself in a particular social group to understand their communication patterns, often using participant observation and interviews to collect data.

Steps for Conducting Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is a qualitative and interpretive method of analyzing texts. You make interpretations based on both the details of the material itself and on contextual knowledge. 

There is no clear-cut method for conducting discourse analysis, as several approaches exist. However, the steps below outline the basic structure.

Step 1: Define the research question and select the content of analysis

Begin with a clearly defined research question and then select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it.

Examples of clearly defined research questions

How does media coverage of immigration policies reinforce or challenge prevailing stereotypes and power dynamics in shaping public perceptions?
How do beauty advertisements construct and perpetuate gender norms and ideologies of beauty, and how do consumers negotiate or resist these representations?
How do participants in family dinner conversations use language to negotiate roles, relationships, and decision-making processes?
How do linguistic features, visual elements, and interaction patterns in online political discussions on social media platforms contribute to the polarization of political opinions?

Select the content of analysis

After developing a research question, select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it.

Discourse analysis can be applied to both large volumes of material and smaller samples, depending on the research aims and timescale.

To illustrate, consider a research project exploring how a country’s transition from a dictatorship to a democracy affected the public relations rhetoric of businesses in that country.

The researcher might decide to analyze the mission statements and marketing material from the 10 largest companies within 5 years of the regime change

Step 2: Collect information about the material production and its presentation medium

When engaging in discourse analysis, gathering information about the material production and presentation is essential for putting data into context and gaining a complete nuanced understanding.

What does “Material Production” mean?

Material production refers to the origin and creation of the text or content you are analyzing. This means finding out:

When and where the content was created
Who the author is
Who published the material
Who the intended audience is
The historical context in which the content was created

What does “Presentation Medium” mean?

“Presentation Medium” refers to how the material is presented. This could include things like:

The type of media used (e.g. book, newspaper, website, social media post, interview, political speech, advertisement, government document).
The specific publication or platform where the material appeared (e.g. The New York Times, Facebook, Twitter).
The format of the material (e.g. article, blog post, video, speech).

Example: Analyzing a speech

Let’s say you’re analyzing a speech about climate change. To understand the speech properly, you would need to know:

Material Production: Who wrote the speech? Is the speaker a scientist, a politician, or an activist? What is their background? When and where was the speech given?
Presentation Medium: Where was the speech delivered? Was it a public address, a speech to a specific group, or a presentation at a conference? Was it live-streamed or recorded?

By considering these factors, you can better understand the speaker’s perspective and motivations, as well as the potential impact of the speech.

Step 4: Identify the text producer(s) and their position(s) in discourse analysis

Identifying the text producer(s) and their position(s) is often carried out in conjunction with understanding the material production of a text (step 3).

This step involves figuring out who created the text and what perspectives and biases they might have. It’s like trying to understand where someone is coming from when they’re talking to you.

Identifying the text producer(s) and their positions is an important step towards critically analyzing a text and uncovering the hidden meanings and assumptions embedded within it.

To determine the text producer’s position, you need to examine:

Their background, profession, and area of expertise.
Their role in the social context of the text.
Their relationship to other participants in the discourse.

By considering these factors, you can gain insights into the author’s perspective and potential biases.

Example

For example, in an academic study analyzing interviews with teenagers from working-class and upper-middle-class families, the researchers considered the social and economic backgrounds of the teenagers and their interviewers.

They also acknowledged the power dynamics inherent in the interviewer-interviewee relationship, recognizing that teenagers might adapt their language based on the perceived identity of the interviewer as a “school-based” or “college-based” person.

Similarly, when analyzing workplace interactions, researchers might look at the power dynamics between managers and employees or between colleagues at different levels of seniority.

Understanding these dynamics can shed light on how language is used to negotiate power, status, and identity within specific social contexts.

Step 5: Examine the structure of the text

After figuring out the context of your data, you should analyze how the author organized their ideas and arguments to form the “structure” of the text, which provides further context.

Locate key sections and their relationship: Look for important sections where the main ideas are presented and see how they connect to each other.
Analyze argument presentation: Pay attention to how the author presents their arguments, using elements like headings, formatting, introductions, and conclusions.
Identify key arguments and support: Figure out the main points the author is making and how they are backing up those points with evidence or explanations.
Identify viewpoints and negotiation: See if the text presents different perspectives and how the author navigates between those viewpoints.

By understanding the structure, you can better grasp the author’s goals and what they are trying to say. This understanding also makes your qualitative analysis and results stronger.

Helpful tips for examining the text structure:

Read Carefully and Take Notes: Pay close attention to the author’s main ideas and how they are organized while reading. Jot down notes on the important parts of the text and how those parts relate to one another.
Look for Signal Words and Phrases: Signal words are like clues that help reveal the text’s organization. For example:
- Words like “first,” “second,” and “third” might suggest a chronological order.
- Words like “however,” “on the other hand,” and “in contrast” might point to a compare/contrast structure.
Use Graphic Organizers: Graphic organizers can be useful tools to visualize the structure of a text. Some common options include flow charts, co-occurrence matrices, Venn diagrams, and mind maps.

At the base of the pyramid lies the context. Every interview, document, or text is situated within some context, be it cultural or otherwise.

Moving up a level, we encounter the structure of these interviews, documents, or texts. While they consist of discursive statements, these statements are part of a larger rhetorical structure that’s important to understand.

At the apex of the pyramid are the statements themselves. Statements form the core of texts, and discourse analysis offers various lenses that delve deeply into these statements.

Step 6: Analyze the discursive statements within the text

Identify statements within the text that reveal underlying values, assumptions, and how the text constructs social reality.

Discursive statements are the fundamental units of meaning within a discourse.

They’re essentially the sentences or phrases that convey ideas and arguments within a text. Analyzing these statements involves dissecting them to uncover their underlying meaning and how they contribute to the overall message of the text.

To analyze discursive statements effectively, you can use different “lenses” or analytical tools. These lenses help you examine the statement from multiple perspectives and uncover hidden layers of meaning.

Here are a few examples of these lenses:

Frame Lens: After analyzing the discursive statements, go back to the context surrounding the text. Consider if there’s any additional information that might change your initial analysis. This lens encourages you to think critically about how the context shapes the meaning of the statements.
“Doing and Not Just Saying” Lens: Look beyond the literal meaning of the statement and consider what the speaker or writer is trying to achieve with their words. This lens helps you understand the intention behind the statement, recognizing that communication involves both explicit and implicit messages. For example, a politician might use vague language to hide contradictions between their actions and their public image.
Stanza Lens: This lens focuses on the organization and structure of the text. Examine how sentences and paragraphs are grouped to form distinct sections or “stanzas.” Understanding this structure helps you understand how the author guides the reader’s understanding and emphasizes certain points.
Activities Building Lens: Consider how the statements within the text contribute to specific social activities or practices. This lens encourages you to think about the broader social implications of the language used. For example, even a car’s user manual has a specific structure and uses language in a way that promotes certain activities.

Analyzing discursive statements is like peeling back the layers of an onion. Each layer reveals new insights into how language shapes meaning and understanding.

By using different analytical lenses, you can gain a deeper appreciation for the complexities of language and its role in constructing social realities.

It’s important to start by practicing the analysis of discursive statements in different types of texts, like news articles or speeches. This practice will help you refine your analytical skills and better understand how discourse operates in various contexts.

Remember, the goal is to move beyond simply describing what the text says to understanding how it constructs meaning and shapes our understanding of the world.

Step 7: Interpreting data and explaining discourse

Connect your findings to explain the essence and functionality of the discourse.

Interpreting the data requires connecting the findings from the previous steps of discourse analysis to explain the main point and purpose of the discourse.

This means taking everything learned about the discourse’s background, author, and social impact and putting it all together into a clear and organized written report.

The goal is to go beyond merely describing what the text says to understanding how it constructs meaning. This involves moving back and forth between the context and the language used.

For example, if analyzing a speech, consider the speaker’s background and their relationship to the audience.

Think about the social and historical events happening when the speech was given, and what the speaker hoped to achieve with their words.

By connecting these contextual factors to the specific language used in the speech, one can start to interpret the data and explain the speech’s essence and function.

It is important to remember that discourse analysis is about formulating hypotheses and gaining confidence in them by looking at data. Always be open to finding evidence that might contradict any hypotheses.

Example of Interpreting Data in Discourse Analysis

After a brief delay, which often suggests a pre-closing, Dad announces his intention to go and close the call.

However, unlike a standard closing, this announcement includes an account: Dad says he has “lots of teeth to make," specifying his task as a dentist. The use of “got” emphasizes the strength of the account.

Note that the account draws on typical resources to highlight the constraints of work, school, mealtimes, or television schedules.

Accounts of this kind present leaving the call as a requirement, showing the speaker as reluctant to go. Accounts help maintain relationships by emphasizing that the speaker is considering the other person.

This example demonstrates how an account given during a phone call closing can reveal information about the relationship between speakers.

Rather than analyzing the account at face value, discourse analysis considers the specific language used ("lots," "got"), its placement in the conversation (after a pre-closing), and how it draws on conventional expectations (work obligations).

By connecting these elements, the analysis reveals that the account functions to build care and manage the delicate action of closing the call.

Step 8: Present your findings

You need to convey the results of your discourse analysis in an organized way. This may involve:

Writing a research paper.
Giving a presentation.
Creating a multimedia product.

When presenting your findings, you should:

Emphasize the relevance of your findings.
Present a compelling case supported by evidence from your analysis.
Consider who your audience will be and whether they are familiar with discourse analysis.
Focus on what is new about your findings if your audience already uses discourse analysis.

Discourse analysis researchers typically disseminate research findings through:

Conference presentations
Journal articles
Book chapters

It is accepted practice in discourse research to include extracts of data to demonstrate how the analysis is linked to the data. This allows readers to assess the analysis for themselves.

When presenting data in published form, it might be necessary to simplify the transcription system to make it easier for a reader to understand. One example is to provide a series of images, like a filmstrip, next to the corresponding talk.

Interpretations can also be presented by referencing line numbers. Providing readers with access to the raw data, in addition to the analysis, strengthens the plausibility of your interpretations.

Challenges of Discourse Analysis

Complexity: Discourse analysis can be intricate because it requires a deep understanding of linguistic and social theories. This complexity may discourage some researchers from using it.
Subjectivity: Interpretation is a significant part of discourse analysis, so different analysts may reach different conclusions when examining the same text. Subjectivity is inherent in qualitative analysis, so steps should be taken to validate results, such as peer debriefing, reflexivity, or using a mixed-method study.
Time-Intensive: Comprehensive discourse analysis can be time-consuming, especially for newcomers. Discourse analysis involves meticulous interpretation of texts, which can be demanding for longer or more extensive materials.
Identifying the Focus of Activity: When studying discourse in an environment where people are moving between locations, it can be difficult to determine the focus of the activity.
Lack of Contextual Dynamism: A weakness of discourse analysis is that corpus-based methods focus on the text as a product and cannot account for the linguistic and contextual factors of discourse. Also, the lack of non-verbal aspects of communication accompanying spoken corpora is a weakness.
Misinterpretations due to Cultural Differences: When speakers have different native languages, they may use or interpret communicative cues differently. Researchers should be cautious of automatically treating any difference in terms of culture.
Delimiting Discourse: It is crucial to establish boundaries for discourse analysis by defining a manageable range of sources and timeframes, but problems with delimitation are inevitable. The choices made regarding delimitation must be defended.
Accounting for All Discourses: A challenge is that a given discourse cannot be entirely separated from all other discourses. Discourses are ordered and scaled in relation to one another.

Validating Results in Discourse Analysis

To ensure trustworthiness and rigor in discourse analysis, researchers employ various strategies like reflexivity and transparency.

Reflexivity involves acknowledging the researcher’s inherent subjectivity and how personal experiences and perspectives can influence data interpretation.
Transparency emphasizes documenting the research process, including rationale for coding, theme development, and any modifications to the analytical approach. This transparency enables others to comprehend the analysis and evaluate its credibility.

Here are some practical strategies to incorporate reflexivity and transparency in thematic analysis:

Reflexive Journal: Researchers maintain a journal to record their thoughts, assumptions, and potential biases. This journal acts as a log of the researcher’s evolving understanding of the data and assists in recognizing potential blind spots.
Team-Based Analysis: Collaboration involving multiple researchers can enhance reflexivity through diverse perspectives and interpretations of data. Discussing coding and theme development as a team allows researchers to challenge assumptions, ensuring a comprehensive analysis.
Articulating the Analytical Process: When presenting thematic analysis findings, researchers should thoroughly detail their methods, including the reasoning behind coding, theme development, and challenges during analysis. This transparency helps readers understand the steps taken to ensure rigor and trustworthiness.

Researchers should document all decisions made during the research process and demonstrate how the analysis is linked to the collected data.

The analysis should offer a plausible account of the data, be coherent in explaining occurrences, and produce fruitful outcomes that contribute to knowledge.

References

Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. Sage, London.

Gee, J., P. (2011). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Routledge, London.

Gergen, K. J. (2015,). An invitation to Social Construction. Sage, London.

Gergen, K. J. (2014). Pursuing excellence in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Psychology, 1(1), 49.

Hodges, B. D., Kuper, A., Reeves, S. (2008). Discourse Analysis. BMJ, a879.

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. Conversation analysis, 13-31.

Johnstone, B. (2017). Discourse Analysis. Wiley, London.

Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. Bloomsbury.

Parker, I. (2013). Discourse analysis: Dimensions of critique in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 10(3), 223-239.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 7-55). Academic Press.

Tannen, D., Hamilton, H., Schiffrin, D. 2015. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Wiley, Chichester.

Examples

Abell, J., Condor, S., Lowe, R. D., Gibson, S., & Stevenson, C. (2007). Who ate all the pride? Patriotic sentiment and English national football support. Nations and nationalism, 13(1), 97-116.
Andreouli, E., Greenland, K., & Figgou, L. (2020). Lay discourses about Brexit and prejudice:
“Ideological creativity” and its limits in Brexit debates. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2), 309–322
Brown, K., & Newth, G. (2024). ‘Post-fascism’, or how the far right talks about itself: the 2022 Italian election campaign as a case study. Critical Discourse Studies, 1-21.
Griffin, C. (2007). Being dead and being there: research interviews, sharing hand cream and the preference for analysingnaturally occurring data‘. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 246-269.
Horowitz, A. D., & Kilby, L. (2019). Thinking out loud: A discourse analysis of ‘thinking’during talk radio interactions. Text & Talk, 39(6), 699-724.
Kirkwood, S., McKinlay, A., & McVittie, C. (2013). ‘They’re more than animals’: Refugees’ accounts of racially motivated violence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 747-762.
McVittie, C., & McKinlay, A. (2019). ‘Would it not be better to get someone out workin?’:‘Safe prejudice’against Polish workers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 19-30.
Seymour-Smith, S., Gough, B., Matthews, C. R., & Rutherford, Z. (2020). Food assessment: a discursive analysis of diet talk in interviews with older men who are obese. Psychology & Health, 35(8), 946-967.
Stokoe, E. (2010). ‘I’m not gonna hit a lady’: Conversation analysis, membership categorization and men’s denials of violence towards women. Discourse & Society, 21(1), 59-82.