DEDICATION
2.1 Discourse
The literature reviewed indicates that there is no consensus among scholars of discourse (and discourse analysis) as to what the term means. This lack of consensus has resulted in the varied definitions of this concept commensurate with the diverse viewpoints (Yang
& Sun, 2010). The diverse viewpoints can be attributed to the positioning of discourse and, by implication, of discourse analysis in multiple disciplines, that are, not only used as intradisciplinary modes, but also as multidisciplinary and, at times, interdisciplinary entities as well. In broad terms, discourse is primarily associated with language. However, scholars of language (Linguists) tend to make explicit differentiations between written and spoken language forms (Alba-Juez, 2009). Furthermore, the various sub-fields within Linguistics tend to differ slightly in the way discourse is conceived and defined.
Yang and Sun (2010) distinguish between the varied conceptions of discourse within the Linguistics discipline. For example, they posit that the Linguistic field is wide and it comprises anthropological linguistics, systemic functional linguistics, sociolinguistics and cognitive linguistics, to name a few. Whilst anthropological linguistics, sociolinguistics and systemic functional linguistics seem to share a view of discourse as being focused on language in use, they also differ on other essential elements (Yang &
Sun, 2010). Suurmond (2005) suggests that the anthropological linguistics view of discourse encompasses, not only the social but also historical events and is, therefore, prone to ideological influences. This conception of discourse takes into consideration people’s cultural and contextual factors. On the one hand, the systemic functional linguistics’ view of discourse straddles between two trajectories: a particular order or arrangement (an ordered system) and practical aspects of things (how the system functions), hence they frequently use the terms, “text and discourse” interchangeably (Yang & Sun, 2010, p. 129). On the other hand, Parker (1992) views discourse, not only as language in use, but also as being inclusive of all social factors due to its interactional and social characteristics, which in turn allow people to create and reflect their realities.
On the contrary, cognitive linguistics’ view discourse as something that emanates from cognition. This view seems to imply that before an individual can articulate in a language, they first have to engage in thinking, and thereafter form mental structures (schema). This view implies that discourse is not haphazard, but a “cognitive phenomena” which can be illuminated as a result of thinking about both the “linguistic and non-linguistic factors”
(Yang & Sun, 2010, p. 129).
The above discussion illustrates the illusive nature of discourse, and presents discourse as a phenomenon which extends beyond the Linguistics field and encroaches into the non- Linguistic fields, such as philosophical and interdisciplinary studies. For example, Foucault (1972) and Burr (1995) refer to discourse as a frame of reference. Whilst Van Dijk (1997) highlights discourse as a form of social interaction, Knights and Morgan (1991) view discourse as a set of ideas and practices relating to a particular phenomenon.
In addition, Stahl (2004) suggests that discourse is a communicative action while Laclau and Mouffe (2001) argue that it is a temporary fixing of meaning.
While for Foucault’s (1972), frame of reference meant the manner in which people interpret and give meaning to the world or objects; for Burr (1995), it meant a conceptual
background for interpreting people’s utterances. Foucault’s definition of discourse highlights the power relations that are inherent in social hierarchy and how those power relations function to “shape discourses, social practices, subjects, objects, knowledge, history—in short, almost everything” (Kopytko, 2001, p. 1640). Burr’s definition and conception of discourse seems to be premised on social constructionism – socially constructed meaning of people’s speeches – hence, the focus on language (Burr, 1995).
Van Dijk’s (1997) conception of discourse as ‘social interaction’ focuses on the idea of discourse as an ongoing process irrespective of the context in which it occurs, e.g.
interactions can occur in professional, informal or institutional spaces. Moreover, Stahl’s (2004) notion of discourse as a ‘communicative action’ appears to bring to bear the moral aspect to discourse. He states that “truth, (normative) rightness, and authenticity” (Stahl, 2004, p. 4331) are always implied whenever one delivers a speech. For this reason, the content of the statement is usually regarded as true, as if it readily adapts to the normative, ethical rules. Discourses are seen to be illuminating such contentious claims. As asserted by Habermas (1983), discourses are not meant to normalise speeches, but rather to check the validity of existing norms.
Furthermore, in his analysis of Foucault, Ball (1990) asserts that discourse is not only about
what can be said and thought, but also about who can speak, when, and with what authority. Discourses embody meaning and social relationships, they constitute both subjectivity and power relations…In so far as discourses are constituted by exclusions as well as inclusions, by what cannot as well as what can be said, they stand in antagonistic relationship to other discourses (p. 2).
In this quotation, the implication seems to be about power relations inherent in discourses, which, in turn, reflect a system of capabilities rather than just utterances. Likewise, these systems, as suggested by Howarth (2006), are about practices that are, not only meaningful, but also constituted partially by “discursive exteriors” (p. 23). They therefore, have the potential of being subverted by the same discourse they constitute.
The idea that a discourse can be subverted by discursive exteriors is in line with Laclau and Mouffe’s (2001) definition of discourse as lacking permanence and rendering meaning-making temporarily fixed by the social actors.
In this section, I have attempted to show the different conceptions of ‘discourse’ which perhaps result from the theoretical inclinations of researchers as influenced by their respective research fields or disciplines. These different understandings of discourse are highly likely to influence the way the study analysis (discourse analysis) is executed. A discussion on discourse analysis follows below.