discourse analysis in an essay

What (Exactly) Is Discourse Analysis? A Plain-Language Explanation & Definition (With Examples)

By: Jenna Crosley (PhD). Expert Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Discourse analysis is one of the most popular qualitative analysis techniques we encounter at Grad Coach. If you’ve landed on this post, you’re probably interested in discourse analysis, but you’re not sure whether it’s the right fit for your project, or you don’t know where to start. If so, you’ve come to the right place.

Overview: Discourse Analysis Basics

In this post, we’ll explain in plain, straightforward language :

• What discourse analysis is
• When to use discourse analysis
• The main approaches to discourse analysis
• How to conduct discourse analysis

What is discourse analysis?

Let’s start with the word “discourse”.

In its simplest form, discourse is verbal or written communication between people that goes beyond a single sentence . Importantly, discourse is more than just language. The term “language” can include all forms of linguistic and symbolic units (even things such as road signs), and language studies can focus on the individual meanings of words. Discourse goes beyond this and looks at the overall meanings conveyed by language in context .  “Context” here refers to the social, cultural, political, and historical background of the discourse, and it is important to take this into account to understand underlying meanings expressed through language.

A popular way of viewing discourse is as language used in specific social contexts, and as such language serves as a means of prompting some form of social change or meeting some form of goal.

Now that we’ve defined discourse, let’s look at discourse analysis .

Discourse analysis uses the language presented in a corpus or body of data to draw meaning . This body of data could include a set of interviews or focus group discussion transcripts. While some forms of discourse analysis center in on the specifics of language (such as sounds or grammar), other forms focus on how this language is used to achieve its aims. We’ll dig deeper into these two above-mentioned approaches later.

As Wodak and Krzyżanowski (2008) put it: “discourse analysis provides a general framework to problem-oriented social research”. Basically, discourse analysis is used to conduct research on the use of language in context in a wide variety of social problems (i.e., issues in society that affect individuals negatively).

For example, discourse analysis could be used to assess how language is used to express differing viewpoints on financial inequality and would look at how the topic should or shouldn’t be addressed or resolved, and whether this so-called inequality is perceived as such by participants.

What makes discourse analysis unique is that it posits that social reality is socially constructed , or that our experience of the world is understood from a subjective standpoint. Discourse analysis goes beyond the literal meaning of words and languages

For example, people in countries that make use of a lot of censorship will likely have their knowledge, and thus views, limited by this, and will thus have a different subjective reality to those within countries with more lax laws on censorship.

When should you use discourse analysis?

There are many ways to analyze qualitative data (such as content analysis , narrative analysis , and thematic analysis ), so why should you choose discourse analysis? Well, as with all analysis methods, the nature of your research aims, objectives and research questions (i.e. the purpose of your research) will heavily influence the right choice of analysis method.

The purpose of discourse analysis is to investigate the functions of language (i.e., what language is used for) and how meaning is constructed in different contexts, which, to recap, include the social, cultural, political, and historical backgrounds of the discourse.

For example, if you were to study a politician’s speeches, you would need to situate these speeches in their context, which would involve looking at the politician’s background and views, the reasons for presenting the speech, the history or context of the audience, and the country’s social and political history (just to name a few – there are always multiple contextual factors).

Discourse analysis can also tell you a lot about power and power imbalances , including how this is developed and maintained, how this plays out in real life (for example, inequalities because of this power), and how language can be used to maintain it. For example, you could look at the way that someone with more power (for example, a CEO) speaks to someone with less power (for example, a lower-level employee).

Therefore, you may consider discourse analysis if you are researching:

• Some form of power or inequality (for example, how affluent individuals interact with those who are less wealthy
• How people communicate in a specific context (such as in a social situation with colleagues versus a board meeting)
• Ideology and how ideas (such as values and beliefs) are shared using language (like in political speeches)
• How communication is used to achieve social goals (such as maintaining a friendship or navigating conflict)

As you can see, discourse analysis can be a powerful tool for assessing social issues , as well as power and power imbalances . So, if your research aims and objectives are oriented around these types of issues, discourse analysis could be a good fit for you.

Discourse Analysis: The main approaches

There are two main approaches to discourse analysis. These are the language-in-use (also referred to as socially situated text and talk ) approaches and the socio-political approaches (most commonly Critical Discourse Analysis ). Let’s take a look at each of these.

Approach #1: Language-in-use

Language-in-use approaches focus on the finer details of language used within discourse, such as sentence structures (grammar) and phonology (sounds). This approach is very descriptive and is seldom seen outside of studies focusing on literature and/or linguistics.

Because of its formalist roots, language-in-use pays attention to different rules of communication, such as grammaticality (i.e., when something “sounds okay” to a native speaker of a language). Analyzing discourse through a language-in-use framework involves identifying key technicalities of language used in discourse and investigating how the features are used within a particular social context.

For example, English makes use of affixes (for example, “un” in “unbelievable”) and suffixes (“able” in “unbelievable”) but doesn’t typically make use of infixes (units that can be placed within other words to alter their meaning). However, an English speaker may say something along the lines of, “that’s un-flipping-believable”. From a language-in-use perspective, the infix “flipping” could be investigated by assessing how rare the phenomenon is in English, and then answering questions such as, “What role does the infix play?” or “What is the goal of using such an infix?”

Need a helping hand?

Approach #2: Socio-political

Socio-political approaches to discourse analysis look beyond the technicalities of language and instead focus on the influence that language has in social context , and vice versa. One of the main socio-political approaches is Critical Discourse Analysis , which focuses on power structures (for example, the power dynamic between a teacher and a student) and how discourse is influenced by society and culture. Critical Discourse Analysis is born out of Michel Foucault’s early work on power, which focuses on power structures through the analysis of normalized power .

Normalized power is ingrained and relatively allusive. It’s what makes us exist within society (and within the underlying norms of society, as accepted in a specific social context) and do the things that we need to do. Contrasted to this, a more obvious form of power is repressive power , which is power that is actively asserted.

Sounds a bit fluffy? Let’s look at an example.

Consider a situation where a teacher threatens a student with detention if they don’t stop speaking in class. This would be an example of repressive power (i.e. it was actively asserted).

Normalized power, on the other hand, is what makes us not want to talk in class . It’s the subtle clues we’re given from our environment that tell us how to behave, and this form of power is so normal to us that we don’t even realize that our beliefs, desires, and decisions are being shaped by it.

In the view of Critical Discourse Analysis, language is power and, if we want to understand power dynamics and structures in society, we must look to language for answers. In other words, analyzing the use of language can help us understand the social context, especially the power dynamics.

While the above-mentioned approaches are the two most popular approaches to discourse analysis, other forms of analysis exist. For example, ethnography-based discourse analysis and multimodal analysis. Ethnography-based discourse analysis aims to gain an insider understanding of culture , customs, and habits through participant observation (i.e. directly observing participants, rather than focusing on pre-existing texts).

On the other hand, multimodal analysis focuses on a variety of texts that are both verbal and nonverbal (such as a combination of political speeches and written press releases). So, if you’re considering using discourse analysis, familiarize yourself with the various approaches available so that you can make a well-informed decision.

How to “do” discourse analysis

As every study is different, it’s challenging to outline exactly what steps need to be taken to complete your research. However, the following steps can be used as a guideline if you choose to adopt discourse analysis for your research.

Step 1: Decide on your discourse analysis approach

The first step of the process is to decide on which approach you will take in terms. For example, the language in use approach or a socio-political approach such as critical discourse analysis. To do this, you need to consider your research aims, objectives and research questions . Of course, this means that you need to have these components clearly defined. If you’re still a bit uncertain about these, check out our video post covering topic development here.

While discourse analysis can be exploratory (as in, used to find out about a topic that hasn’t really been touched on yet), it is still vital to have a set of clearly defined research questions to guide your analysis. Without these, you may find that you lack direction when you get to your analysis. Since discourse analysis places such a focus on context, it is also vital that your research questions are linked to studying language within context.

Based on your research aims, objectives and research questions, you need to assess which discourse analysis would best suit your needs. Importantly, you  need to adopt an approach that aligns with your study’s purpose . So, think carefully about what you are investigating and what you want to achieve, and then consider the various options available within discourse analysis.

It’s vital to determine your discourse analysis approach from the get-go , so that you don’t waste time randomly analyzing your data without any specific plan.

Step 2: Design your collection method and gather your data

Once you’ve got determined your overarching approach, you can start looking at how to collect your data. Data in discourse analysis is drawn from different forms of “talk” and “text” , which means that it can consist of interviews , ethnographies, discussions, case studies, blog posts.  

The type of data you collect will largely depend on your research questions (and broader research aims and objectives). So, when you’re gathering your data, make sure that you keep in mind the “what”, “who” and “why” of your study, so that you don’t end up with a corpus full of irrelevant data. Discourse analysis can be very time-consuming, so you want to ensure that you’re not wasting time on information that doesn’t directly pertain to your research questions.

When considering potential collection methods, you should also consider the practicalities . What type of data can you access in reality? How many participants do you have access to and how much time do you have available to collect data and make sense of it? These are important factors, as you’ll run into problems if your chosen methods are impractical in light of your constraints.

Once you’ve determined your data collection method, you can get to work with the collection.

Step 3: Investigate the context

A key part of discourse analysis is context and understanding meaning in context. For this reason, it is vital that you thoroughly and systematically investigate the context of your discourse. Make sure that you can answer (at least the majority) of the following questions:

• What is the discourse?
• Why does the discourse exist? What is the purpose and what are the aims of the discourse?
• When did the discourse take place?
• Where did it happen?
• Who participated in the discourse? Who created it and who consumed it?
• What does the discourse say about society in general?
• How is meaning being conveyed in the context of the discourse?

Make sure that you include all aspects of the discourse context in your analysis to eliminate any confounding factors. For example, are there any social, political, or historical reasons as to why the discourse would exist as it does? What other factors could contribute to the existence of the discourse? Discourse can be influenced by many factors, so it is vital that you take as many of them into account as possible.

Once you’ve investigated the context of your data, you’ll have a much better idea of what you’re working with, and you’ll be far more familiar with your content. It’s then time to begin your analysis.

Step 4: Analyze your data

When performing a discourse analysis, you’ll need to look for themes and patterns .  To do this, you’ll start by looking at codes , which are specific topics within your data. You can find more information about the qualitative data coding process here.

Next, you’ll take these codes and identify themes. Themes are patterns of language (such as specific words or sentences) that pop up repeatedly in your data, and that can tell you something about the discourse. For example, if you’re wanting to know about women’s perspectives of living in a certain area, potential themes may be “safety” or “convenience”.

In discourse analysis, it is important to reach what is called data saturation . This refers to when you’ve investigated your topic and analyzed your data to the point where no new information can be found. To achieve this, you need to work your way through your data set multiple times, developing greater depth and insight each time. This can be quite time consuming and even a bit boring at times, but it’s essential.

Once you’ve reached the point of saturation, you should have an almost-complete analysis and you’re ready to move onto the next step – final review.

Step 5: Review your work

Hey, you’re nearly there. Good job! Now it’s time to review your work.

This final step requires you to return to your research questions and compile your answers to them, based on the analysis. Make sure that you can answer your research questions thoroughly, and also substantiate your responses with evidence from your data.

Usually, discourse analysis studies make use of appendices, which are referenced within your thesis or dissertation. This makes it easier for reviewers or markers to jump between your analysis (and findings) and your corpus (your evidence) so that it’s easier for them to assess your work.

When answering your research questions, make you should also revisit your research aims and objectives , and assess your answers against these. This process will help you zoom out a little and give you a bigger picture view. With your newfound insights from the analysis, you may find, for example, that it makes sense to expand the research question set a little to achieve a more comprehensive view of the topic.

Let’s recap…

In this article, we’ve covered quite a bit of ground. The key takeaways are:

• Discourse analysis is a qualitative analysis method used to draw meaning from language in context.
• You should consider using discourse analysis when you wish to analyze the functions and underlying meanings of language in context.
• The two overarching approaches to discourse analysis are language-in-use and socio-political approaches .
• The main steps involved in undertaking discourse analysis are deciding on your analysis approach (based on your research questions), choosing a data collection method, collecting your data, investigating the context of your data, analyzing your data, and reviewing your work.

If you have any questions about discourse analysis, feel free to leave a comment below. If you’d like 1-on-1 help with your analysis, book an initial consultation with a friendly Grad Coach to see how we can help.

Psst… there’s more (for free)

This post is part of our dissertation mini-course, which covers everything you need to get started with your dissertation, thesis or research project. 

You Might Also Like:

30 Comments

This was really helpful to me

I would like to know the importance of discourse analysis analysis to academic writing

In academic writing coherence and cohesion are very important. DA will assist us to decide cohesiveness of the continuum of discourse that are used in it. We can judge it well.

Thank you so much for this piece, can you please direct how I can use Discourse Analysis to investigate politics of ethnicity in a particular society

Fantastically helpful! Could you write on how discourse analysis can be done using computer aided technique? Many thanks

I would like to know if I can use discourse analysis to research on electoral integrity deviation and when election are considered free & fair

I also to know the importance of discourse analysis and it’s purpose and characteristics

Thanks, we are doing discourse analysis as a subject this year and this helped a lot!

Please can you help explain and answer this question? With illustrations,Hymes’ Acronym SPEAKING, as a feature of Discourse Analysis.

What are the three objectives of discourse analysis especially on the topic how people communicate between doctor and patient

Very useful Thank you for your work and information

thank you so much , I wanna know more about discourse analysis tools , such as , latent analysis , active powers analysis, proof paths analysis, image analysis, rhetorical analysis, propositions analysis, and so on, I wish I can get references about it , thanks in advance

Its beyond my expectations. It made me clear everything which I was struggling since last 4 months. 👏 👏 👏 👏

Thank you so much … It is clear and helpful

Thanks for sharing this material. My question is related to the online newspaper articles on COVID -19 pandemic the way this new normal is constructed as a social reality. How discourse analysis is an appropriate approach to examine theese articles?

This very helpful and interesting information

This was incredible! And massively helpful.

I’m seeking further assistance if you don’t mind.

Found it worth consuming!

What are the four types of discourse analysis?

very helpful. And I’d like to know more about Ethnography-based discourse analysis as I’m studying arts and humanities, I’d like to know how can I use it in my study.

Amazing info. Very happy to read this helpful piece of documentation. Thank you.

is discourse analysis can take data from medias like TV, Radio…?

I need to know what is general discourse analysis

Direct to the point, simple and deep explanation. this is helpful indeed.

Thank you so much was really helpful

really impressive

Thank you very much, for the clear explanations and examples.

It is really awesome. Anybody within just in 5 minutes understand this critical topic so easily. Thank you so much.

Thank you for enriching my knowledge on Discourse Analysis . Very helpful thanks again

This was extremely helpful. I feel less anxious now. Thank you so much.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on August 23, 2019 by Amy Luo . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Critical discourse analysis (or discourse analysis) is a research method for studying written or spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real life situations.

When you conduct discourse analysis, you might focus on:

• The purposes and effects of different types of language
• Cultural rules and conventions in communication
• How values, beliefs and assumptions are communicated
• How language use relates to its social, political and historical context

Discourse analysis is a common qualitative research method in many humanities and social science disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology and cultural studies.  

Table of contents

What is discourse analysis used for, how is discourse analysis different from other methods, how to conduct discourse analysis, other interesting articles.

Conducting discourse analysis means examining how language functions and how meaning is created in different social contexts. It can be applied to any instance of written or oral language, as well as non-verbal aspects of communication such as tone and gestures.

Materials that are suitable for discourse analysis include:

• Books, newspapers and periodicals
• Marketing material, such as brochures and advertisements
• Business and government documents
• Websites, forums, social media posts and comments
• Interviews and conversations

By analyzing these types of discourse, researchers aim to gain an understanding of social groups and how they communicate.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Unlike linguistic approaches that focus only on the rules of language use, discourse analysis emphasizes the contextual meaning of language.

It focuses on the social aspects of communication and the ways people use language to achieve specific effects (e.g. to build trust, to create doubt, to evoke emotions, or to manage conflict).

Instead of focusing on smaller units of language, such as sounds, words or phrases, discourse analysis is used to study larger chunks of language, such as entire conversations, texts, or collections of texts. The selected sources can be analyzed on multiple levels.

Discourse analysis is a qualitative and interpretive method of analyzing texts (in contrast to more systematic methods like content analysis ). You make interpretations based on both the details of the material itself and on contextual knowledge.

There are many different approaches and techniques you can use to conduct discourse analysis, but the steps below outline the basic structure you need to follow. Following these steps can help you avoid pitfalls of confirmation bias that can cloud your analysis.

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

To do discourse analysis, you begin with a clearly defined research question . Once you have developed your question, select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it.

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

Step 2: Gather information and theory on the context

Next, you must establish the social and historical context in which the material was produced and intended to be received. Gather factual details of when and where the content was created, who the author is, who published it, and whom it was disseminated to.

As well as understanding the real-life context of the discourse, you can also conduct a literature review on the topic and construct a theoretical framework to guide your analysis.

Step 3: Analyze the content for themes and patterns

This step involves closely examining various elements of the material – such as words, sentences, paragraphs, and overall structure – and relating them to attributes, themes, and patterns relevant to your research question.

Step 4: Review your results and draw conclusions

Once you have assigned particular attributes to elements of the material, reflect on your results to examine the function and meaning of the language used. Here, you will consider your analysis in relation to the broader context that you established earlier to draw conclusions that answer your research question.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Luo, A. (2023, June 22). Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 1, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/discourse-analysis/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

What is qualitative research | methods & examples, what is a case study | definition, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

21 Great Examples of Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is an approach to the study of language that demonstrates how language shapes reality. It usually takes the form of a textual or content analysis .

Discourse is understood as a way of perceiving, framing, and viewing the world.

For example:

• A dominant discourse of gender often positions women as gentle and men as active heroes.
• A dominant discourse of race often positions whiteness as the norm and colored bodies as ‘others’ (see: social construction of race )

Through discourse analysis, scholars look at texts and examine how those texts shape discourse.

In other words, it involves the examination of how the ‘ways of speaking about things’ normalizes and privileges some frames of thinking about things while marginalizing others.

As a simple example, if movies consistently frame the ideal female as passive, silent, and submissive, then society comes to think that this is how women should behave and makes us think that this is normal , so women who don’t fit this mold are abnormal .

Instead of seeing this as just the way things are, discourse analysts know that norms are produced in language and are not necessarily as natural as we may have assumed.

Examples of Discourse Analysis

1. language choice in policy texts.

A study of policy texts can reveal ideological frameworks and viewpoints of the writers of the policy. These sorts of studies often demonstrate how policy texts often categorize people in ways that construct social hierarchies and restrict people’s agency .

Examples include:

2. Newspaper Bias

Conducting a critical discourse analysis of newspapers involves gathering together a quorum of newspaper articles based on a pre-defined range and scope (e.g. newspapers from a particular set of publishers within a set date range).

Then, the researcher conducts a close examination of the texts to examine how they frame subjects (i.e. people, groups of people, etc.) from a particular ideological, political, or cultural perspective.

3. Language in Interviews

Discourse analysis can also be utilized to analyze interview transcripts. While coding methods to identify themes are the most common methods for analyzing interviews, discourse analysis is a valuable approach when looking at power relations and the framing of subjects through speech.

4. Television Analysis

Discourse analysis is commonly used to explore ideologies and framing devices in television shows and advertisements.

Due to the fact advertising is not just textual but rather multimodal , scholars often mix a discourse analytic methodology (i.e. exploring how television constructs dominant ways of thinking) with semiotic methods (i.e. exploration of how color, movement, font choice, and so on create meaning).

I did this, for example, in my PhD (listed below).

5. Film Critique

Scholars can explore discourse in film in a very similar way to how they study discourse in television shows. This can include the framing of sexuality gender, race, nationalism, and social class in films.

A common example is the study of Disney films and how they construct idealized feminine and masculine identities that children should aspire toward.

6. Analysis of Political Speech

Political speeches have also been subject to a significant amount of discourse analysis. These studies generally explore how influential politicians indicate a shift in policy and frame those policy shifts in the context of underlying ideological assumptions.

9. Examining Marketing Texts

Advertising is more present than ever in the context of neoliberal capitalism. As a result, it has an outsized role in shaping public discourse. Critical discourse analyses of advertising texts tend to explore how advertisements, and the capitalist context that underpins their proliferation, normalize gendered, racialized, and class-based discourses.

11. Analyzing Lesson Plans

As written texts, lesson plans can be analyzed for how they construct discourses around education as well as student and teacher identities. These texts tend to examine how teachers and governing bodies in education prioritize certain ideologies around what and how to learn. These texts can enter into discussions around the ‘history wars’ (what and whose history should be taught) as well as ideological approaches to religious and language learning.

12. Looking at Graffiti

One of my favorite creative uses of discourse analysis is in the study of graffiti. By looking at graffiti, researchers can identify how youth countercultures and counter discourses are spread through subversive means. These counterdiscourses offer ruptures where dominant discourses can be unsettled and displaced.

Get a Pdf of this article for class

Enjoy subscriber-only access to this article’s pdf

The Origins of Discourse Analysis

1. foucault.

French philosopher Michel Foucault is a central thinker who shaped discourse analysis. His work in studies like Madness and Civilization and The History of Sexuality demonstrate how our ideas about insanity and sexuality have been shaped through language.

The ways the church speaks about sex, for example, shapes people’s thoughts and feelings about it.

The church didn’t simply make sex a silent taboo. Rather, it actively worked to teach people that desire was a thing of evil, forcing them to suppress their desires.

Over time, society at large developed a suppressed normative approach to the concept of sex that is not necessarily normal except for the fact that the church reiterates that this is the only acceptable way of thinking about the topic.

Similarly, in Madness and Civilization , a discourse around insanity was examined. Medical discourse pathologized behaviors that were ‘abnormal’ as signs of insanity. Were the dominant medical discourse to change, it’s possible that abnormal people would no longer be seen as insane.

One clear example of this is homosexuality. Up until the 1990s, being gay was seen in medical discourse as an illness. Today, most of Western society sees that this way of looking at homosexuality was extremely damaging and exclusionary, and yet at the time, because it was the dominant discourse, people didn’t question it.

2. Norman Fairclough

Fairclough (2013), inspired by Foucault, created some key methodological frameworks for conducting discourse analysis.

Fairclough was one of the first scholars to articulate some frameworks around exploring ‘text as discourse’ and provided key tools for scholars to conduct analyses of newspaper and policy texts.

Today, most methodology chapters in dissertations that use discourse analysis will have extensive discussions of Fairclough’s methods.

Discourse analysis is a popular primary research method in media studies, cultural studies, education studies, and communication studies. It helps scholars to show how texts and language have the power to shape people’s perceptions of reality and, over time, shift dominant ways of framing thought. It also helps us to see how power flows thought texts, creating ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’ in society.

Key examples of discourse analysis include the study of television, film, newspaper, advertising, political speeches, and interviews.

Al Kharusi, R. (2017). Ideologies of Arab media and politics: a CDA of Al Jazeera debates on the Yemeni revolution. PhD Dissertation: University of Hertfordshire.

Alaazi, D. A., Ahola, A. N., Okeke-Ihejirika, P., Yohani, S., Vallianatos, H., & Salami, B. (2021). Immigrants and the Western media: a CDA of newspaper framings of African immigrant parenting in Canada. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 47 (19), 4478-4496. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1798746

Al-Khawaldeh, N. N., Khawaldeh, I., Bani-Khair, B., & Al-Khawaldeh, A. (2017). An exploration of graffiti on university’s walls: A corpus-based discourse analysis study. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics , 7 (1), 29-42. Doi: https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i1.6856

Alsaraireh, M. Y., Singh, M. K. S., & Hajimia, H. (2020). Critical DA of gender representation of male and female characters in the animation movie, Frozen. Linguistica Antverpiensia , 104-121.

Baig, F. Z., Khan, K., & Aslam, M. J. (2021). Child Rearing and Gender Socialisation: A Feminist CDA of Kids’ Popular Fictional Movies. Journal of Educational Research and Social Sciences Review (JERSSR) , 1 (3), 36-46.

Barker, M. E. (2021). Exploring Canadian Integration through CDA of English Language Lesson Plans for Immigrant Learners. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée , 24 (1), 75-91. Doi: https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2021.28959

Coleman, B. (2017). An Ideological Unveiling: Using Critical Narrative and Discourse Analysis to Examine Discursive White Teacher Identity. AERA Online Paper Repository .

Drew, C. (2013). Soak up the goodness: Discourses of Australian childhoods on television advertisements, 2006-2012. PhD Dissertation: Australian Catholic University. Doi: https://doi.org/10.4226/66/5a9780223babd

Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language . London: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction . London: Vintage.

Foucault, M. (2003). Madness and civilization . New York: Routledge.

Hahn, A. D. (2018). Uncovering the ideologies of internationalization in lesson plans through CDA. The New English Teacher , 12 (1), 121-121.

Isti’anah, A. (2018). Rohingya in media: CDA of Myanmar and Bangladesh newspaper headlines. Language in the Online and Offline World , 6 , 18-23. Doi: http://repository.usd.ac.id/id/eprint/25962

Khan, M. H., Adnan, H. M., Kaur, S., Qazalbash, F., & Ismail, I. N. (2020). A CDA of anti-Muslim rhetoric in Donald Trump’s historic 2016 AIPAC policy speech. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs , 40 (4), 543-558. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13602004.2020.1828507

Louise Cooper, K., Luck, L., Chang, E., & Dixon, K. (2021). What is the practice of spiritual care? A CDA of registered nurses’ understanding of spirituality. Nursing Inquiry , 28 (2), e12385. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12385

Mohammadi, D., Momeni, S., & Labafi, S. (2021). Representation of Iranians family’s life style in TV advertising (Case study: food ads). Religion & Communication , 27 (58), 333-379.

Munro, M. (2018) House price inflation in the news: a CDA of newspaper coverage in the UK. Housing Studies, 33(7), pp. 1085-1105. doi: 10.1080/02673037.2017.1421911

Ravn, I. M., Frederiksen, K., & Beedholm, K. (2016). The chronic responsibility: a CDA of Danish chronic care policies. Qualitative Health Research , 26 (4), 545-554. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1049732315570133

Sengul, K. (2019). Critical discourse analysis in political communication research: a case study of right-wing populist discourse in Australia. Communication Research and Practice , 5 (4), 376-392. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2019.1695082

Serafis, D., Kitis, E. D., & Archakis, A. (2018). Graffiti slogans and the construction of collective identity: evidence from the anti-austerity protests in Greece. Text & Talk , 38 (6), 775-797. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2018-0023

Suphaborwornrat, W., & Punkasirikul, P. (2022). A Multimodal CDA of Online Soft Drink Advertisements. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network , 15 (1), 627-653.

Symes, C., & Drew, C. (2017). Education on the rails: a textual ethnography of university advertising in mobile contexts. Critical Studies in Education , 58 (2), 205-223. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2016.1252783

Thomas, S. (2005). The construction of teacher identities in educational policy documents: A critical discourse analysis. Critical Studies in Education , 46 (2), 25-44. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17508480509556423

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What Is a Discourse Analysis Essay: Example & Guide

Discourse is the way people talk about any specific topic. It’s also the way in which language is used to convey social and historical meanings. Discourse analysis is the process that helps to understand the underlying message of what is being said. Sounds interesting? Keep reading to learn more. 

Our specialists will write a custom essay specially for you!

This in this article, our custom writing team will:

• define discourse and its analysis; 
• explain how to write a discourse analysis essay step by step; 
• provide an essay sample.
• 🤔 Discourse Analysis Definition
• 🔬 Types & Approaches
• 👣 Step-by-Step Guide
• 📑 Discourse Analysis Example

🔍 References

🤔 what is a discourse analysis.

To write a good discourse analysis, it’s essential to understand its key concepts. This section of the article will focus on the definition of discourse itself and then move on to its analysis.

Discourse: Definition

Discourse is verbal or written communication that has unity, meaning, and purpose. In linguistics, discourse refers to a unit of language that is longer than a sentence. When you analyze discourse, you examine how the language is used to construct connected and meaningful texts. 

One crucial thing that can’t be neglected when it comes to discourse is the context. In linguistics, there are different ways to classify contexts. Here is one such classification:

The knowledge of context is crucial for discourse analysis, as it helps interpret the text’s meaning. For that reason, it’s essential to keep the context in mind while analyzing the discourse. No context simply means no discourse.  

Just in 1 hour! We will write you a plagiarism-free paper in hardly more than 1 hour

Discourse vs Syntax: Difference

• Syntax is one of discourse’s dimensions. It encompasses rules for composing grammatical sentences. Unlike discourse, syntax can also be applied to non-verbal instances such as music or any other code.
• Discourse is one level above syntax. It studies how the sets of sentences following syntactic parameters work together and convey the meaning.

Spoken Discourse vs Written Discourse

Discourse itself can be classified as written and spoken (or oral.) One of the main differences is that spoken discourse uses spoken words to transfer information, while written one uses written words. There are also some other differences:

• Spoken discourse needs to be understood immediately. It also usually contains discourse markers— words that create pause or separation of ideas such as “you know,” “like,” or “well.” 
• Written discourse can be referred to several times. For the written discourse to happen, the participants need to know how to write and read, requiring specific skills. It’s also often tied to the genre or structure of the language it uses to imply the purpose or context of the text. 

Discourse Analysis Definition

Discourse analysis is a technique that arose in the late 20th century from the growing interest in qualitative research. The main purpose of discourse analysis is to understand the message and its implications. It can be done by studying the text’s parts and the factors that influence people’s understanding of it.

Discourse analysis is deeply connected with linguistics, anthropology, sociology, socio-psychology, philosophy, communications studies, and literature. It challenges the idea that we should take language for granted and instead encourages more interpretative and qualitative approaches. That’s why it is used in various fields to:

• describe organizational change;
• read between the lines while analyzing policy texts;
• provide greater depth to qualitative accounting research;
• use multiple fields to synthesize information. 

Content Analysis vs. Discourse Analysis

Content analysis and discourse analysis are research techniques used in various disciplines. However, there are several differences between the two:

• Content analysis is quantitative. It focuses on studying and retrieving meaningful information from documents.
• Discourse analysis is qualitative. It focuses on how language is used in texts and contexts.

🔬 Preparing to Write a Discourse Analysis Essay

Now let’s talk about writing a discourse analysis essay. Before you start to work on your paper, it’s best to decide what type of discourse analysis you plan to do and choose the correct approach. It will influence your topic choice and writing techniques. Besides, it will make the whole process easier.

Receive a plagiarism-free paper tailored to your instructions. Cut 20% off your first order!

Types of Discourse Analysis: How to Choose

Critical Discourse Analysis Characteristics

Critical discourse analysis or CDA is a cross-disciplinary methodological and theoretical approach. It focuses on the issues of power and inequalities in linguistic interactions between individuals and groups. It’s closely related to applied linguistics, cultural and social studies, anthropology, intercultural communication, and critical pedagogy.

Choose a critical discourse analysis if you want to do the following:

• Study meaning and context of the verbal interaction or a text.
• Focus on the topics of identity and power.
• Examine the potential for a change in an area.
• Explore the connections between power and ideology.

Cultural Discourse Analysis Characteristics

Cultural discourse analysis or CuDA is a method of studying culturally distinctive communication practices in our world. In the communication field, CuDA is most often used by scholars of Language and Social Interaction.

Choose a cultural discourse analysis if you’re interested in:

• Studying culturally-specific means of communication in various local contexts.
• Seeing how people talk about identity, relations, actions, and feelings.
• Proving that the differences should be acknowledged, embraced, and celebrated in intercultural dialogue.

Political Discourse Analysis Characteristics

Political discourse analysis or PDA focuses on the use of language in politics, political texts, and documents. It also includes the recipients of communicative political events, such as the citizens and the general public. Therefore, it can be said the discourse is located in both political and public spheres.

Get an originally-written paper according to your instructions!

Choose a political discourse analysis if you want to do the following:

• Deal with the concepts of political power, power   abuse ,  or domination.
• Examine the discursive conditions and consequences of social and political inequality.
• Analyze the words and actions of politicians.

Multimodal Discourse Analysis Characteristics

Multimodal discourse analysis is a technique that implies looking at multiple modes of communication such as text, color, and images. It studies how they interact with one another to create semiotic meaning.

Each mode of communication plays a specific role in the analysis. A picture, for instance, can easily depict something that takes too long to describe in words. Colors are mainly used to highlight specific aspects of the general message.

Choose a multimodal discourse analysis if you plan to:

• Look at several modes of communication at once.
• Conduct a nuanced and complex analysis of visual media.
• Work with online sources and platforms. 

Approaches to Discourse Analysis: How to Choose

Now that you’ve chosen the type of discourse analysis, it’s time to choose a suitable approach. There are two approaches to discourse analysis: language -in-use and socio-political discourse analysis .

• The language-in-use approach mainly focuses on the regular use of language in communication. It pays attention to sentence structure, phonology, and grammar. This approach is very descriptive and is mainly used in linguistics or literature.
• The socio-political approach focuses on how a language influences the social and political context and vice versa. One of the main socio-political approaches is Critical Discourse Analysis, born out of Michel Foucault’s work Discipline and Punish . It identifies two types of power: normalized and repressive (you can read about in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on Foucault .) 

The language-in-use framework involves identifying the technicalities of language and investigating how the features are used in a particular social context. 

the English language usually uses affixes and suffixes but not infixes. If an English speaker says something similar to “that’s un-flipping-believable,” the questions for this approach would be “What role does the infix play?” or “What is the goal of using such an infix?” 

Now let’s see an example of a socio-political approach. We’ll take the power dynamic between a teacher and a student as an illustration.

A teacher threatening a student with detention if they don’t stop speaking in class can be classified as a repressive power. Normalized power, in contrast, isn’t actively asserted. It’s the power that makes students not want to talk in class. It’s manifested in the subtle clues from our environment that tell students how to behave.

👣 How to Do Discourse Analysis Step by Step

Now you are finally ready to start writing your discourse analysis. Follow our step-by-step guide, and you’ll excel at it.

Step #1: Choose the research question and select the content of the analysis.

Coming up with a clearly defined research question is crucial. There’s no universal set of criteria for a good research question. However, try to make sure that you research question:

• clearly states the purpose of the work;
• is not too broad or too narrow;
• can be investigated and has enough sources to rely on;
• allows you to conduct an analysis;
• is not too difficult to answer.

Step #2: Gather information.

Go through interviews, speeches, discussions, blogs, etc., to collect all the necessary information. Make sure to gather factual details of when and where the content you will use was created, who the author is, and who published it.

Step #3: Study the context.

This step involves a close examination of various elements of the gathered material.

• Take a closer look at the words used in the source text, its sentences, paragraphs, and overall structure.
• Consider 3 constructs of context: participants, setting, and purpose . These 3 characteristics reflect information about the individual, their emotional state, and their identity as members of a societal group.

Step #4: Review the results.

Once you’ve researched and examined all the sources, it’s time to reflect on your results and place your analysis in a broader context.

• To establish a broader context, you may consider what events have impacted the topic you are writing about and the consequences.  
• Finally, draw conclusions that answer your research question. 

Step #5: Make an outline.

Before you are all set with your discourse analysis, one last step is to write an outline. Usually, a discourse analysis essay consists of six parts:

📑 Example of Discourse Analysis Essay

Now that you know all about discourse analysis, we will introduce an example of a discourse analysis essay. From this sample, you can see what the layout of this kind of essay usually looks like. 

You might also want to check out the discourse analysis samples below.

• Psychometric Approach and Discourse Analysis in Psychology of Laughter
• Financial Discourse Under Financial Crisis 2007-2008
• Dysphemism in Political Discourse Examples
• Historical Memory Discourse in Public Diplomacy
• Isolationism in Contemporary Public Discourse
• Lincoln’s and Dickinson’s Rhetorical Discourses

Discourse Analysis Essay Topics

• Terrorism theories and media discourse  
• The benefits of infographics in social media advertising 
• Do better communication skills lead to the development of the social self? 
• How can you make social media advertising successful? 
• Possible causes of the Mayan civilization’s political collapse    
• Commission of Education and Communication’s worldwide contribution  
• Coach and athletes’ communication strategy 
• Celebrities ‘ impact on politics 
• Social media marketing for brand promotion 
• What makes listening the most effective communication technique? 
• Excessive social media usage and its consequences 
• Web-based organizational discourses: climate change  
• Media as a tool to cause intense emotions 
• Verbal and nonverbal communication skills for presentations  
• New media technologies and the development of relationships and communication 
• Features and issues of the American political system  
• Association between social media use and FOMO 
• Communication issues between stakeholders 
• Why is political opportunity theory essential for social movement studies? 
• How do social media and the Internet connect people? 
• How can communication be used for self-presentation? 
• Does social media limit personal freedom? 
• Hamlet’s universality and contemporary cultural discourse  
• Is it possible to apply Goffman’s theory of the presentation of self in digital communication? 
• The Democratic and Republican Party’s position on the issue of Terrorism  
• How does social media affect families? 
• How communication affects the individual’s development  
• Characteristics of a political issue  
• Ageism in media and society 
• Possible mobile communication technologies of the future 
• How does social media technology improve democratic processes? 
• Persuasion and public communication  
• The signs of social media addiction  
• Psychometric approach and discourse analysis in the psychology of laughter  
• The role of media in a political system 
• Cultural differences in nonverbal communication  
• The politically socialized vision of the world 
• The negative effects of digital media platforms on the lives of young people 
• Core beliefs of different political ideologies  
• Approaches to overcome miscommunications in the workplace  
• The effectiveness of social media tools for educational purposes 
• Is technology a threat to face-to-face communication? 
• What issues come with using electronic media ? 
• Difficulties connected with the development of communication technologies  

Thanks for reading till the end! We hope you’ve enjoyed the article and found lots of helpful information. If you did, feel free to share it with your friends. We wish you good luck with the discourse analysis essay!

Further reading

• How to Write a Discursive Essay: Tips to Succeed & Examples
• Case Study Analysis: Examples + How-to Guide & Writing Tips
• How to Write a Literary Analysis Essay Step by Step
• How to Write a Rhetorical Analysis Essay: Outline, Steps, & Examples

❓ Discourse Analysis FAQs

Literary discourse analysis is a type of discourse analysis that deals with literature and is viewed as a relatively new approach to it. It integrates the analysis of literature and non-literary genres in an innovative study of discourse.

Rhetoric uses language to appeal to emotions to persuade, inform, or motivate the audience. Rhetorical discourse is used to study texts aimed at specific audiences. Such texts often try to convince or persuade people by using particular language and arguments. 

Critical discourse analysis focuses on issues of power and inequalities in linguistic interactions between individuals and different groups. It studies the role of power in the social construction of difference and examines how it’s created, questioned or inflicted through communication.

Discourse analysis is a blanket term that encompasses a range of qualitative research approaches that analyze the use of language in social contexts. These techniques help understand the underlying message of what people say and how they say it, whereas in face-to-face conversation, non-verbal interaction, documents, or images.

To write a discourse analysis of any community, you need to examine and understand it. Ask yourself these questions and try to identify the patterns:

1. What ideas or concerns keep the community together? 2. What kind of langue does it use? 3. Does it produce any written documents?

• Discourse: The University of Chicago
• Definition and Examples of Discourse: ThoughtCo
• Discourse: British Council: BBC
• Use Discourse Analysis: Emerald Publishing
• Discourse Analysis—What Speakers Do in Conversation: Linguistic Society of America
• Critical Discourse Analysis and Information and Communication Technology in Education: Oxford Research Encyclopedias
• Political Discourse Analysis: Exploring the Language of Politics and the Politics of Language: Research Gate
• Discourse Analysis and Everything You Need to Know: Voxco
• Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Diggit Magazine
• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to email

A précis is a brief synopsis of a written piece. It is used to summarize and analyze a text’s main points. If you need to write a précis for a research paper or the AP Lang exam, you’ve come to the right place. In this comprehensive guide by Custom-Writing.org, you’ll...

A synthesis essay requires you to work with multiple sources. You combine the information gathered from them to present a well-rounded argument on a topic. Are you looking for the ultimate guide on synthesis essay writing? You’ve come to the right place! In this guide by our custom writing team,...

Do you know how to make your essay stand out? One of the easiest ways is to start your introduction with a catchy hook. A hook is a phrase or a sentence that helps to grab the reader’s attention. After reading this article by Custom-Writing.org, you will be able to...

A critical analysis essay is an academic paper that requires a thorough examination of theoretical concepts and ideas. It includes a comparison of facts, differentiation between evidence and argument, and identification of biases. Crafting a good paper can be a daunting experience, but it will be much easier if you...

Critical thinking is the process of evaluating and analyzing information. People who use it in everyday life are open to different opinions. They rely on reason and logic when making conclusions about certain issues. A critical thinking essay shows how your thoughts change as you research your topic. This type...

Process analysis is an explanation of how something works or happens. Want to know more? Read the following article prepared by our custom writing specialists and learn about: process analysis and its typesa process analysis outline tipsfree examples and other tips that might be helpful for your college assignment So,...

A visual analysis essay is an academic paper type that history and art students often deal with. It consists of a detailed description of an image or object. It can also include an interpretation or an argument that is supported by visual evidence. In this article, our custom writing experts...

Want to know how to write a reflection paper for college or school? To do that, you need to connect your personal experiences with theoretical knowledge. Usually, students are asked to reflect on a documentary, a text, or their experience. Sometimes one needs to write a paper about a lesson...

A character analysis is an examination of the personalities and actions of protagonists and antagonists that make up a story. It discusses their role in the story, evaluates their traits, and looks at their conflicts and experiences. You might need to write this assignment in school or college. Like any...

Any critique is nothing more than critical analysis, and the word “analysis” does not have a negative meaning. Critical writing relies on objective evaluations of or a response to an author’s creation. As such, they can be either positive or negative, as the work deserves. To write a critique, you...

Any literary analysis is a challenging task since literature includes many elements that can be interpreted differently. However, a stylistic analysis of all the figurative language the poets use may seem even harder. You may never realize what the author actually meant and how to comment on it! While analyzing...

As a student, you may be asked to write a book review. Unlike an argumentative essay, a book review is an opportunity to convey the central theme of a story while offering a new perspective on the author’s ideas. Knowing how to create a well-organized and coherent review, however, is...

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Discourse Analysis – Methods, Types and Examples

Discourse Analysis – Methods, Types and Examples

Table of Contents

Discourse Analysis

Definition:

Discourse Analysis is a method of studying how people use language in different situations to understand what they really mean and what messages they are sending. It helps us understand how language is used to create social relationships and cultural norms.

It examines language use in various forms of communication such as spoken, written, visual or multi-modal texts, and focuses on how language is used to construct social meaning and relationships, and how it reflects and reinforces power dynamics, ideologies, and cultural norms.

Types of Discourse Analysis

Some of the most common types of discourse analysis are:

Conversation Analysis

This type of discourse analysis focuses on analyzing the structure of talk and how participants in a conversation make meaning through their interaction. It is often used to study face-to-face interactions, such as interviews or everyday conversations.

Critical discourse Analysis

This approach focuses on the ways in which language use reflects and reinforces power relations, social hierarchies, and ideologies. It is often used to analyze media texts or political speeches, with the aim of uncovering the hidden meanings and assumptions that are embedded in these texts.

Discursive Psychology

This type of discourse analysis focuses on the ways in which language use is related to psychological processes such as identity construction and attribution of motives. It is often used to study narratives or personal accounts, with the aim of understanding how individuals make sense of their experiences.

Multimodal Discourse Analysis

This approach focuses on analyzing not only language use, but also other modes of communication, such as images, gestures, and layout. It is often used to study digital or visual media, with the aim of understanding how different modes of communication work together to create meaning.

Corpus-based Discourse Analysis

This type of discourse analysis uses large collections of texts, or corpora, to analyze patterns of language use across different genres or contexts. It is often used to study language use in specific domains, such as academic writing or legal discourse.

Descriptive Discourse

This type of discourse analysis aims to describe the features and characteristics of language use, without making any value judgments or interpretations. It is often used in linguistic studies to describe grammatical structures or phonetic features of language.

Narrative Discourse

This approach focuses on analyzing the structure and content of stories or narratives, with the aim of understanding how they are constructed and how they shape our understanding of the world. It is often used to study personal narratives or cultural myths.

Expository Discourse

This type of discourse analysis is used to study texts that explain or describe a concept, process, or idea. It aims to understand how information is organized and presented in such texts and how it influences the reader’s understanding of the topic.

Argumentative Discourse

This approach focuses on analyzing texts that present an argument or attempt to persuade the reader or listener. It aims to understand how the argument is constructed, what strategies are used to persuade, and how the audience is likely to respond to the argument.

Discourse Analysis Conducting Guide

Here is a step-by-step guide for conducting discourse analysis:

• What are you trying to understand about the language use in a particular context?
• What are the key concepts or themes that you want to explore?
• Select the data: Decide on the type of data that you will analyze, such as written texts, spoken conversations, or media content. Consider the source of the data, such as news articles, interviews, or social media posts, and how this might affect your analysis.
• Transcribe or collect the data: If you are analyzing spoken language, you will need to transcribe the data into written form. If you are using written texts, make sure that you have access to the full text and that it is in a format that can be easily analyzed.
• Read and re-read the data: Read through the data carefully, paying attention to key themes, patterns, and discursive features. Take notes on what stands out to you and make preliminary observations about the language use.
• Develop a coding scheme : Develop a coding scheme that will allow you to categorize and organize different types of language use. This might include categories such as metaphors, narratives, or persuasive strategies, depending on your research question.
• Code the data: Use your coding scheme to analyze the data, coding different sections of text or spoken language according to the categories that you have developed. This can be a time-consuming process, so consider using software tools to assist with coding and analysis.
• Analyze the data: Once you have coded the data, analyze it to identify patterns and themes that emerge. Look for similarities and differences across different parts of the data, and consider how different categories of language use are related to your research question.
• Interpret the findings: Draw conclusions from your analysis and interpret the findings in relation to your research question. Consider how the language use in your data sheds light on broader cultural or social issues, and what implications it might have for understanding language use in other contexts.
• Write up the results: Write up your findings in a clear and concise way, using examples from the data to support your arguments. Consider how your research contributes to the broader field of discourse analysis and what implications it might have for future research.

Applications of Discourse Analysis

Here are some of the key areas where discourse analysis is commonly used:

• Political discourse: Discourse analysis can be used to analyze political speeches, debates, and media coverage of political events. By examining the language used in these contexts, researchers can gain insight into the political ideologies, values, and agendas that underpin different political positions.
• Media analysis: Discourse analysis is frequently used to analyze media content, including news reports, television shows, and social media posts. By examining the language used in media content, researchers can understand how media narratives are constructed and how they influence public opinion.
• Education : Discourse analysis can be used to examine classroom discourse, student-teacher interactions, and educational policies. By analyzing the language used in these contexts, researchers can gain insight into the social and cultural factors that shape educational outcomes.
• Healthcare : Discourse analysis is used in healthcare to examine the language used by healthcare professionals and patients in medical consultations. This can help to identify communication barriers, cultural differences, and other factors that may impact the quality of healthcare.
• Marketing and advertising: Discourse analysis can be used to analyze marketing and advertising messages, including the language used in product descriptions, slogans, and commercials. By examining these messages, researchers can gain insight into the cultural values and beliefs that underpin consumer behavior.

When to use Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is a valuable research methodology that can be used in a variety of contexts. Here are some situations where discourse analysis may be particularly useful:

• When studying language use in a particular context: Discourse analysis can be used to examine how language is used in a specific context, such as political speeches, media coverage, or healthcare interactions. By analyzing language use in these contexts, researchers can gain insight into the social and cultural factors that shape communication.
• When exploring the meaning of language: Discourse analysis can be used to examine how language is used to construct meaning and shape social reality. This can be particularly useful in fields such as sociology, anthropology, and cultural studies.
• When examining power relations: Discourse analysis can be used to examine how language is used to reinforce or challenge power relations in society. By analyzing language use in contexts such as political discourse, media coverage, or workplace interactions, researchers can gain insight into how power is negotiated and maintained.
• When conducting qualitative research: Discourse analysis can be used as a qualitative research method, allowing researchers to explore complex social phenomena in depth. By analyzing language use in a particular context, researchers can gain rich and nuanced insights into the social and cultural factors that shape communication.

Examples of Discourse Analysis

Here are some examples of discourse analysis in action:

• A study of media coverage of climate change: This study analyzed media coverage of climate change to examine how language was used to construct the issue. The researchers found that media coverage tended to frame climate change as a matter of scientific debate rather than a pressing environmental issue, thereby undermining public support for action on climate change.
• A study of political speeches: This study analyzed political speeches to examine how language was used to construct political identity. The researchers found that politicians used language strategically to construct themselves as trustworthy and competent leaders, while painting their opponents as untrustworthy and incompetent.
• A study of medical consultations: This study analyzed medical consultations to examine how language was used to negotiate power and authority between doctors and patients. The researchers found that doctors used language to assert their authority and control over medical decisions, while patients used language to negotiate their own preferences and concerns.
• A study of workplace interactions: This study analyzed workplace interactions to examine how language was used to construct social identity and maintain power relations. The researchers found that language was used to construct a hierarchy of power and status within the workplace, with those in positions of authority using language to assert their dominance over subordinates.

Purpose of Discourse Analysis

The purpose of discourse analysis is to examine the ways in which language is used to construct social meaning, relationships, and power relations. By analyzing language use in a systematic and rigorous way, discourse analysis can provide valuable insights into the social and cultural factors that shape communication and interaction.

The specific purposes of discourse analysis may vary depending on the research context, but some common goals include:

• To understand how language constructs social reality: Discourse analysis can help researchers understand how language is used to construct meaning and shape social reality. By analyzing language use in a particular context, researchers can gain insight into the cultural and social factors that shape communication.
• To identify power relations: Discourse analysis can be used to examine how language use reinforces or challenges power relations in society. By analyzing language use in contexts such as political discourse, media coverage, or workplace interactions, researchers can gain insight into how power is negotiated and maintained.
• To explore social and cultural norms: Discourse analysis can help researchers understand how social and cultural norms are constructed and maintained through language use. By analyzing language use in different contexts, researchers can gain insight into how social and cultural norms are reproduced and challenged.
• To provide insights for social change: Discourse analysis can provide insights that can be used to promote social change. By identifying problematic language use or power imbalances, researchers can provide insights that can be used to challenge social norms and promote more equitable and inclusive communication.

Characteristics of Discourse Analysis

Here are some key characteristics of discourse analysis:

• Focus on language use: Discourse analysis is centered on language use and how it constructs social meaning, relationships, and power relations.
• Multidisciplinary approach: Discourse analysis draws on theories and methodologies from a range of disciplines, including linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and psychology.
• Systematic and rigorous methodology: Discourse analysis employs a systematic and rigorous methodology, often involving transcription and coding of language data, in order to identify patterns and themes in language use.
• Contextual analysis : Discourse analysis emphasizes the importance of context in shaping language use, and takes into account the social and cultural factors that shape communication.
• Focus on power relations: Discourse analysis often examines power relations and how language use reinforces or challenges power imbalances in society.
• Interpretive approach: Discourse analysis is an interpretive approach, meaning that it seeks to understand the meaning and significance of language use from the perspective of the participants in a particular discourse.
• Emphasis on reflexivity: Discourse analysis emphasizes the importance of reflexivity, or self-awareness, in the research process. Researchers are encouraged to reflect on their own positionality and how it may shape their interpretation of language use.

Advantages of Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis has several advantages as a methodological approach. Here are some of the main advantages:

• Provides a detailed understanding of language use: Discourse analysis allows for a detailed and nuanced understanding of language use in specific social contexts. It enables researchers to identify patterns and themes in language use, and to understand how language constructs social reality.
• Emphasizes the importance of context : Discourse analysis emphasizes the importance of context in shaping language use. By taking into account the social and cultural factors that shape communication, discourse analysis provides a more complete understanding of language use than other approaches.
• Allows for an examination of power relations: Discourse analysis enables researchers to examine power relations and how language use reinforces or challenges power imbalances in society. By identifying problematic language use, discourse analysis can contribute to efforts to promote social justice and equality.
• Provides insights for social change: Discourse analysis can provide insights that can be used to promote social change. By identifying problematic language use or power imbalances, researchers can provide insights that can be used to challenge social norms and promote more equitable and inclusive communication.
• Multidisciplinary approach: Discourse analysis draws on theories and methodologies from a range of disciplines, including linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and psychology. This multidisciplinary approach allows for a more holistic understanding of language use in social contexts.

Limitations of Discourse Analysis

Some Limitations of Discourse Analysis are as follows:

• Time-consuming and resource-intensive: Discourse analysis can be a time-consuming and resource-intensive process. Collecting and transcribing language data can be a time-consuming task, and analyzing the data requires careful attention to detail and a significant investment of time and resources.
• Limited generalizability: Discourse analysis is often focused on a particular social context or community, and therefore the findings may not be easily generalized to other contexts or populations. This means that the insights gained from discourse analysis may have limited applicability beyond the specific context being studied.
• Interpretive nature: Discourse analysis is an interpretive approach, meaning that it relies on the interpretation of the researcher to identify patterns and themes in language use. This subjectivity can be a limitation, as different researchers may interpret language data differently.
• Limited quantitative analysis: Discourse analysis tends to focus on qualitative analysis of language data, which can limit the ability to draw statistical conclusions or make quantitative comparisons across different language uses or contexts.
• Ethical considerations: Discourse analysis may involve the collection and analysis of sensitive language data, such as language related to trauma or marginalization. Researchers must carefully consider the ethical implications of collecting and analyzing this type of data, and ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of participants is protected.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Cluster Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

Discriminant Analysis – Methods, Types and...

MANOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) –...

Documentary Analysis – Methods, Applications and...

ANOVA (Analysis of variance) – Formulas, Types...

Graphical Methods – Types, Examples and Guide

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on 5 May 2022 by Amy Luo . Revised on 5 December 2022.

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

When you do discourse analysis, you might focus on:

• The purposes and effects of different types of language
• Cultural rules and conventions in communication
• How values, beliefs, and assumptions are communicated
• How language use relates to its social, political, and historical context

Discourse analysis is a common qualitative research method in many humanities and social science disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and cultural studies. It is also called critical discourse analysis.

Table of contents

What is discourse analysis used for, how is discourse analysis different from other methods, how to conduct discourse analysis.

Conducting discourse analysis means examining how language functions and how meaning is created in different social contexts. It can be applied to any instance of written or oral language, as well as non-verbal aspects of communication, such as tone and gestures.

Materials that are suitable for discourse analysis include:

• Books, newspapers, and periodicals
• Marketing material, such as brochures and advertisements
• Business and government documents
• Websites, forums, social media posts, and comments
• Interviews and conversations

By analysing these types of discourse, researchers aim to gain an understanding of social groups and how they communicate.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Unlike linguistic approaches that focus only on the rules of language use, discourse analysis emphasises the contextual meaning of language.

It focuses on the social aspects of communication and the ways people use language to achieve specific effects (e.g., to build trust, to create doubt, to evoke emotions, or to manage conflict).

Instead of focusing on smaller units of language, such as sounds, words, or phrases, discourse analysis is used to study larger chunks of language, such as entire conversations, texts, or collections of texts. The selected sources can be analysed on multiple levels.

Discourse analysis is a qualitative and interpretive method of analysing texts (in contrast to more systematic methods like content analysis ). You make interpretations based on both the details of the material itself and on contextual knowledge.

There are many different approaches and techniques you can use to conduct discourse analysis, but the steps below outline the basic structure you need to follow.

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

To do discourse analysis, you begin with a clearly defined research question . Once you have developed your question, select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it.

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

Step 2: Gather information and theory on the context

Next, you must establish the social and historical context in which the material was produced and intended to be received. Gather factual details of when and where the content was created, who the author is, who published it, and whom it was disseminated to.

As well as understanding the real-life context of the discourse, you can also conduct a literature review on the topic and construct a theoretical framework to guide your analysis.

Step 3: Analyse the content for themes and patterns

This step involves closely examining various elements of the material – such as words, sentences, paragraphs, and overall structure – and relating them to attributes, themes, and patterns relevant to your research question.

Step 4: Review your results and draw conclusions

Once you have assigned particular attributes to elements of the material, reflect on your results to examine the function and meaning of the language used. Here, you will consider your analysis in relation to the broader context that you established earlier to draw conclusions that answer your research question.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Luo, A. (2022, December 05). Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 25 March 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/discourse-analysis-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

Case study | definition, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | guide & examples, content analysis | a step-by-step guide with examples.

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Do a Critical Discourse Analysis

Last Updated: April 7, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Christopher Taylor, PhD . Christopher Taylor is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of English at Austin Community College in Texas. He received his PhD in English Literature and Medieval Studies from the University of Texas at Austin in 2014. There are 8 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 87,335 times.

The field of critical discourse analysis (CDA) involves taking a deeper, qualitative look at different types of texts, whether in advertising, literature, or journalism. Analysts try to understand ways in which language connects to social, cultural, and political power structures. As understood by CDA, all forms of language and types of writing or imagery can convey and shape cultural norms and social traditions. While there is no single method that covers all types of critical discourse analyses, there are some grounding steps that you can take to ensure that your CDA is well done. [1] X Research source

Working with a Text

• Texts could include things like Moby Dick , Citizen Kane , a cologne advertisement, a conversation between a doctor and their patient, or a piece of journalism describing an election.

• As a first step, circle all of the adverbs and adjectives in the text. Then, consider what they might suggest about the tone of the piece.
• Look for tone words to help you figure out what the author is trying to convey.
• For example, say you're looking at a piece of political journalism about the president. If the text describes the president as “the goofball in the Oval Office,” the attitude is sarcastic and critical.
• However, if the president is described as “the leader of the free world,” the attitude is respectful and even reverential.
• If the article simply refers to the president as “the president,” its attitude is deliberately neutral, as if the text refuses to “take sides.”

• For example, think about a news report about international immigrants coming to a country. The newscaster can create different types of community by referring to the immigrants as “strangers,” “refugees,” or “aliens.”
• The word “refugees” will prompt sympathy among listeners and will help build a community between citizens and immigrants, while “alien” will help create hostile feelings and will exclude the immigrants from the nation's community.

• For example, an 18th century short story that begins, “The savages attacked the unarmed settlers at dawn,” contains implicit interpretations and biases about indigenous populations.
• Another story that begins, “The natives and settlers made a peaceful arrangement,” has a comparatively benign interpretation of historical events.

Analyzing the Text's Form and Production

• For example, think about the difference between an author who writes a novel for money and one who writes for their own pleasure.
• The first author would want to tap into popular trends ends of the day in order to profit, while the second author would be less concerned with pleasing the public.

• For example, consider the case of a CEO delivering a speech in person to their company. The fact that they're delivering a speech and not sending an open letter shows that openness and transparency are important to the CEO and the company culture.
• If the CEO did not deliver a speech, but only sent an email to board members and top executives, the formal change would imply that the text had a very different audience. The email would make the CEO seem less personal, unconcerned about their own workers, and elitist in who they chose to address.

• For example, say that a contemporary writer opens a poem or story with: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” Quoting Charles Dickens at once shows that the author is well-read and also grounds their writing in the English Victorian literary tradition.

Tracing Power in Social Practices

• For example, if a political speakers says, “our forefathers smile upon us today,” they are using patriarchal language.
• The term “culture” should be taken very broadly. Businesses can have cultures, as can communities of all sizes, countries, language groups, racial groups, and even hobbyists can have specific cultures.

• For example, consider 2 different magazine ads for trucks. In the first, a rugged-looking man sits in a truck below the words “The vehicle for men.” In the second, a family sits in a truck and the ad copy reads, “A truck to hold everybody.”
• The first ad seems to rely on stereotypical ideas of masculinity, while the second seems more inclusive.

• For example, imagine a politician whose slogan is “All energy should come from coal!” Because of the extremity of the stance, you may suspect that the candidate represents a fringe party that doesn't share many of the mainstream party's views.
• You could confirm this suspicion by looking at other candidates' speeches to see how they address the fringe candidate. If other candidates critique the fringe candidate, the latter is likely part of a sub-group whose views aren't shared by the main political culture.

• For example, companies like Ikea, Emirate Airlines, and McDonald's have strong cultures and norms that exist internationally.

Expert Q&A

• In an academic setting, CDA isn't tied to 1 single field or discipline. Instead, CDA helps students in a variety of fields understand ways in which the production of texts carries cultural meaning. Thanks Helpful 1 Not Helpful 0
• As with any other theoretical field, there are many different ways to perform critical discourse analyses. However, they're largely the same at the core: the models all examine ways in which texts at the smallest (word-based) and the largest (social and cultural) levels have an impact on how communities are formed and what readers believe about the world. Thanks Helpful 1 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://www.history.ac.uk/1807commemorated/media/methods/critical.html
• ↑ https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/ed270/Luke/SAHA6.html#4
• ↑ https://study.com/academy/lesson/interpreting-literary-meaning-how-to-use-text-to-guide-your-interpretation.html
• ↑ https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/discourse-analysis/
• ↑ https://youtu.be/3w_5riFCMGA?t=378
• ↑ https://youtu.be/3w_5riFCMGA?t=669
• ↑ https://www.uv.es/gimenez/Recursos/criticaldiscourse.pdf
• ↑ https://youtu.be/3w_5riFCMGA?t=358

About This Article

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Andrew Boyle

Jul 6, 2020

Did this article help you?

Oct 23, 2020

Aliyu Muhammad

Nov 29, 2022

SK Chakraborty

Apr 16, 2022

Aug 2, 2019

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

• How it works

Discourse Analysis – A Definitive Guide With Steps & Types

Published by Alvin Nicolas at August 14th, 2021 , Revised On August 29, 2023

What is Discourse Analysis?

Discourse analysis is an essential aspect of studying a language and its uses in day-to-day life.

It aims to gain in-depth knowledge about the language and identify its association with society, culture, and people’s perception.

It is used in various social science and humanities disciplines, such as linguistic, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics.

Aims of Discourse Analysis

It focuses on

• The clear, in-depth meaning of the language.
• The uses of language and its effects.
• The association of the language with cultures, interpersonal relationships, and communication.
• Various components of the language like vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, tone of voice, fonts, and written form.

Uses of Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is

• Used to study the language and its applications in texts and contexts.
• It focuses on the entire conversation and real text instead of constructed or artificial text.
• It helps linguists to know the role of language in improving the understanding of people.
• It enables teachers to learn many language strategies to teach students writing/speaking skills better.

Materials Used in Discourse Analysis

The material includes

Types of Discourse

What to analyse, does your research methodology have the following.

• Great Research/Sources
• Perfect Language
• Accurate Sources

If not, we can help. Our panel of experts makes sure to keep the 3 pillars of Research Methodology strong.

How to Conduct Discourse Analysis?

While conducting discourse analysis, you need to focus on the following points.

• Purpose of the writer
• The context of the speech/passage
• Type of the language used.
• The organisation of the text

You need to interpret the meaning and context of the discourse based on the available material and resources. There are various methods to conduct discourse analysis, but we are discussing the most basic method below.

Step1: Develop a Research Question

Like any other research in discourse analysis, it’s essential to have a  research question  to proceed with your study.  After selecting your research question, you need to find out the relevant resources to find the answer to it. Discourse analysis can be applied to smaller or larger samples depending on your research’s aims and requirements.

Example : If you want to find out the impact of plagiarism on the credibility of the authors. You can examine the relevant materials available on the topic from the internet, newspapers, and books published during the past 5-10 years.

Step 2: Collect Information and Establish the Context

After formulating a research question, you can  review the literature and find out the details about the source material, such as:

• Who is the author?
• What is the year and date of publication?
• What’s the name of the publication?
• What country and place is it from?
• What language is used?
• How and where did you find it?
• How can others get access to the same source?
• What kind of impact did it make on its audience?
• What’s the association between discourse material and real life?

These questions enable you to construct a strong evidence-based theory about your study.

Example: While investigating the history and origin of a particular religion. You also have to research the political events, culture, language of the people, and their association with society.

Generally, details about the publication and production of the material are available in the  about section on their online websites. If you don’t find the relevant information online, don’t hesitate to contact the editor or publication via email, phone calls, etc. 

Step 3: Analyse the Content

In this step, you should analyse various aspects of the materials such as:

• Sentence structure
• Inter-relationship between the text
• Layout and Page quality (if you are using offline materials)
• Links, comments, technical excellence, readability, multimedia content (if you are using online material)
• The genre of the source (a news item, political speech, a report, interview, biography, commentary, etc.)

The analysis of these elements gives you a clear understanding, and you can present your findings more accurately.  Once you have analysed the above features, you should analyse the following aspects:

• The structure of the argument
• The role of the introduction and conclusion of the material
• The context of the material
• Patterns and themes
• Discursive statements (arguments, perspective, thoughts of the writer/speaker
• Grammatical features (use of pronouns, adjectives, phrases, active or passive voice, and their meaning)
• Literary figures (idioms, similes, metaphors, allegories, proverbs)

Step 4: Interpret the Data

Now you have all the information, but the question that arises here is: 

What does it all mean?

To answer this question,  compile all your findings  to explain the meaning and context of the discourse.

Step 5: Present your Findings

It’s time to present your results. Throughout the process, you gathered detailed notes of the discourse, building a strong presentation or thesis. You can use the references of other relevant sources as evidence to support your discussion. Always try to make your paper interesting to grab the attention of the reader.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Discourse Analysis

• It provides a way of thinking and analysing the problem.
• It enables us to understand the context and perception of the speaker.
• It can be applied at any given time, place, and people.
• It helps to learn any language its origin and association with society and culture.

Disadvantages

• There are many options available as each tradition has its own concepts, procedures, and a specific understanding of discourse and its analysis.
• Discourse analysis doesn’t help to find out the answer to scientific problems.

Frequently Asked Questions

How to describe the discourse analysis.

Discourse analysis examines language use in context. It studies how communication shapes and reflects social meaning, power dynamics, and cultural norms. By analyzing spoken, written, or visual language, it unveils hidden ideologies, identities, and social structures within various contexts.

You May Also Like

A hypothesis is a research question that has to be proved correct or incorrect through hypothesis testing – a scientific approach to test a hypothesis.

Quantitative research is associated with measurable numerical data. Qualitative research is where a researcher collects evidence to seek answers to a question.

Thematic analysis is commonly used for qualitative data. Researchers give preference to thematic analysis when analysing audio or video transcripts.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Linguistics — Overview of Discourse Analysis Definition and Use

Overview of Discourse Analysis Definition and Use

• Categories: Language Linguistics

About this sample

Words: 2117 |

11 min read

Published: Feb 9, 2022

Words: 2117 | Pages: 5 | 11 min read

• Berrocal, M.L., Villegas, V.M. and Barquero, V.V. (2016). Bringing critical discourse analysis into the foreign language classroom: A case study of a Taiwanese learner of Spanish in Costa Rica. Revista de lenguas modernas, (24).
• Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Firth, J.R. (1935). The Technique of Semantics. Transactions of the philological society, 34(1), 36-73.
• Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in Linguistics (1934–51). London: Oxford University Press.
• Flowerdew, J. (2012). Discourse in English Language Education. Routledge.
• Gee, J.P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis, Theory and Method, Routledge.
• Gee, J.P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, Theory and Method, London: Routledge.
• Halliday, M.A.K. (1971). Language in a social perspective. Educational Review, 23(3), 165-188.
• Halliday, M.A.K. (2007). Language in a social perspective (1971). Language and Society. Collected works of MAK Halliday, 10, 43-64.
• Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language, London: Edward Arnold, Cop.
• Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic, The social interpretation of language and meaning. Hodder Arnold.
• Halliday, M. (1978). Language as a Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1978) Language as social semiotic. London: Arnold
• Harris, Z.S. (1952). Discourse Analysis. Language, 28(1), 1.
• Haugen, E. and Firth, J.R. (1958). Papers in linguistics 1934-1951. Language, 34(4), 498.
• Olshtain, E. and Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Discourse Analysis and Language Teaching. The handbook of discourse analysis, 36, 707.
• Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse analysis, an introduction, 2nd ed. London: Continuum.
• Paltridge, B.et al. (2014). Discourse analysis an introduction, London: Bloomsbury.
• Rashidi, N. and Rafieerad, M. (2010). Analyzing Patterns of Classroom Interaction in EFL Classrooms in Iran. The Journal Of Asia TEFL, 7(3), 93-120.
• Taylor, S. (2013). What is discourse analysis? London: Bloomsbury Academic.
• Trappes-Lomax, H. (2004). Discourse analysis. The handbook of applied linguistics, 133-164.
• Widdowson, H.G. (2004). Text, context, pretext, critical issues in discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Available from https://uow.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9780470758427.
• Widdowson, H. G. (2004). Text, Context, Pretext, Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Science

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1975 words

1 pages / 556 words

8 pages / 3815 words

6 pages / 2634 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Linguistics

Communication is not just about the words we speak; it also involves the use of nonverbal cues such as language. language plays a crucial role in conveying our thoughts, feelings, and intentions to others. In fact, research [...]

English is a global language spoken by millions of people around the world. It is the official language of many countries and serves as a lingua franca in various fields such as business, science, and technology. Like any [...]

Penelope Eckert and Sally McConnell-Ginet's essay, "Learning to Be..." delves into the complex and multifaceted nature of gender identity and its development. The authors explore the ways in which individuals learn to perform [...]

In English language there are eight parts of speech and they are: Noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunction, and interjection. The parts of speech show the function of a word in context of its meaning and [...]

“The Language is the road map of a culture”, which tells us where the people came from and where they are heading. The way an individual speaks, hears, and reads influences society by impacting an individual’s cultural identity. [...]

Semantic similarity is a metric defined over a set of documents or terms, where the idea of distance between them is based on the likeness of their meaning or semantic content as opposed to similarity which can be estimated [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Introduction

Course Overview

Rationale for the Course

Goals for the Course

Portfolios - Overview

Unit 1: Personal and Academic Writing

Unit 2: Using Sources

Unit 3: Reflecting on Writing

Suggested Grading Breakdown

Suggested Weekly Outline

Suggested Text: "Frame Work"

Alternative Texts

Working with International Students

Writing Assignments

Portfolio 1

Unit 2 - Discourse Analysis

Unit 2 - Source Evaluation

Unit 2 - Position Paper

Teaching Materials

Detailed Syllabi

Daily Prompts

Supplemental Readings

Portfolio Considerations

Discourse Analysis

The key question you'll answer is "How does this essay respond to its intended audience?" In other words, how does the writer organize and develop his/her ideas? How is the voice a response to the imagined/intended readers (its "discourse community")?

You're answering the key question for your group members, who are working with you to find a pool of sources that might be useful in the next essay for this class. They'll be counting on you for an accurate report on your source.

Your goals: Think of this assignment as preparation for the longer essay you'll be asked to write next (comparing and contrasting two essays on your topic written for two different audiences). As a group, you'll want to find as many different sources, targeted toward as many different audiences, as you can, so that when you sit down to write your essay you'll have plenty of essays to choose from. Individually, then, your goal is to "do your part" for the group by finding an interesting possible essay and offering a detailed analysis of it for your group to use.

Strategies for completing the essay include these:

Critical Discourse Analysis Compare & Contrast Essay

Introduction, defining discourse analysis, defining critical discourse analysis, the difference between critical discourse analysis and discourse analysis.

Language may be used in different contexts and texts to create different meanings. To understand the sign, vocal, or even written language, a form of analysis is crucial in establishing both the intended and implied meanings.

This paper discusses discourse examination and critical discourse analysis (CDA) as two important approaches to analysing language use in vocal, sign, and written forms. Its main concern is to demonstrate the difference between the perspectives of language use in written and text forms.

Discourse analysis (DA) is a general term that is applied to various paradigms that are deployed in the study of the sign, vocal, written, and any other language semiotics. Objects that are used in the analysis under this approach are defined in terms of an individual’s consistency in the application of prepositions, use of sentences, tongue, and even turns-at-talk (Ross & Nightingale 2003).

Opposed to traditional approaches to linguistic analysis, discourse analysis focuses on studying not only the usage of language outside the limits of sentences use, but also analysing language in its conventional usage, rather than utilising invented examples.

This claim suggests a close relationship between discourse analysis and text analysis. However, the two concepts are different since discourse analysis also objects to identify various socio-psychological traits of people, rather than just the structure of the texts (Keller 2011).

As Bryman (2008) confirms, discourse analysis may find application in various social sciences among them being linguistics, social work, cultural studies, and communications disciplines. However, in each of the disciplines, its application is subject to assumptions, methodologies of studies, and analysis approaches that guide it. Discourse analysis covers a variety of topics that are of interest to different analysts.

They include sounds, language syntax, rhetoric, meanings, gesture, interaction, and acts of speech among others. It can take different genres, including business, politics, and science among others. Discourse analysts are interested in topics such as the relationship between context and texts, discourse and power, and interaction and the discourse.

From the above discussions, the term discourse analysis simply means studies on different ways in which languages are deployed in different texts and contexts.

In a more interactive definition, as Blommaert (2005, p.97) informs, ‘it concerns itself with the use of language in a running discourse, continued over a number of sentences, and involving the interaction of a speaker, writer, auditor, or a reader in a specific situational context, and within a framework of social cultural conventions’. Indeed, it is not just concerned with the methodology.

Its studies include the nature of usage of language and its relationship with key issues that scholars encounter in social science studies (Ritchie & Lewis 2003).

In particular, discourse analysis relates to the gathering of different perspectives of discourse. Such approaches relate to both data collection practices and theoretical assumptions together with meta-theoretical postulations that guide research approaches (Wood & Kroger 2000).

Discourse analysis differs from the grammatical analysis. Grammatical data involves one sentence or a collection of many sentences that demonstrate a given aspect of the language under study. In the process of analysis, a grammatical analyst will compile different sentences that he or she deploys as examples.

This approach differs from discourse analysis. Its primary interest is on the morphological productivity of different people as opposed to the forecaster. Discourse analysis data is adopted from recordings or written texts. Such data is hardly derived from one sentence.

Discourse analysis interconnects with rhetoric studies. Indeed, Eisenhart and Barbara (2008) reveal how discourse researches are interrelated classes of oratory, symphony, and practical morphology. Studies on speech making have been expanding. They comprise rhetoric of politics, popular culture, and informal arguments. A new pedagogy has been established concerning personal identity rhetoric.

These changes call for the expansion traditional approaches to language analysis and talks and texts in new mechanisms that reflect material and socio-cultural discourse contexts. This observation suggests that the discipline of rhetoric studies is now closely interlinked with discourse analysis.

Consequently, as Gee (2005) reveals, discourse analysis is a means of engaging in an incredibly crucial human task, which entails thinking deeply on meanings that are attached to words that people utter for the world to become a humane living place.

Critical discourse analysis is a sub-discipline of discourse analysis. It approaches discourses from a political motive. Conversely compared to campaigners and or politicians, decisive dissertation examination extends past grave matters. Analysts in critical discourses have a structural understanding and knowledge, which supersedes general insights on politically motivated issues (Renkema 2004).

They examine basic sources, the circumstances, and even the consequences of different concerns. Hence, as opposed to political scientists, critical discourse analysts have an interest in arriving at a scholarly sound contribution, which includes an in-depth insight into specific pressing politicised issues in the society.

The critical dissertation is perhaps the hardest test that discourse forecasters encounter. It demands a multidisciplinary understanding together with intricate understanding of relationships that occur in texts, power, culture, talks, and even the society. Indeed, its criterion for adequacy does not merely depend on descriptive, explanatory, or observational skills (Renkema 2004).

Success in the critical discourse analysis rests on the platform of the relevance and effectiveness of the contribution of analysis in creating change.

This situation requires modesty. Indeed, under critical discourses, educational involvement may be trivial in times of transformation, particularly if individuals who are closely engaged with reference to their conduct are successful transformation agents. This position is perhaps well evidenced by the transformation procedures that involve liberalisation, feminist campaigns, the battle for public privileges, and class campaigns.

One of the most significant concerns of critical discourse analysis involves developing an understanding of the relationship between languages, dominance, and social power. Such an understanding helps in predicting the contribution of discourse on the reproduction of various power differences.

While discussing social power, critical discourse analysis ignores powers that individuals portray, unless under circumstances in which the powers contribute to the development of productive relationships between different social groups.

Social power may be manifested in the form of accessibility to various valuable resources in social platforms, including wealth, education, skills, knowledge, and even status. Under critical discourse analysis, accessibility to different forms of power from the context of communication and discourse is a crucial resource of power.

In critical discourse analysis, political motive forms its basic tenet, which involves power struggles. Authority is a means of being in charge of one assembly of people over members of another assembly. It limits people’s cognition and actions. Hence, it influences people’s minds and their freedom of action.

Power is enacted through acts of persuasion, manipulation through talks, and dissimulation. The goal is to alter people’s cognitions and thinking processes in an effort to align them with those of the influential social groups. To this extent, critical discourse analysis helps in the management of other people’s minds via texts and talks.

Critical discourse analysts garner different topics that require analysis before proceeding to collect large amounts of texts. However, the corpus of texts does not comprise the only methodology for critical discourse analysis.

Different researchers grant the right to apply all methods that permit the generation of insights to ideologies that the discourses promote. The critical discourse analysis investigates different text echelons that range from micro, macro, and meso levels of text to identify political motives in them.

Critical discourse analysis involves the utilisation of different techniques of studying language and texts as a cultural and social practice (Seale 2004). It draws its tenets from the poststructuralist pedagogy that investigates the functions of all institutional sites.

It also contends that language and texts play important roles in the development of human ideologies and identities (Eisenhart & Barbara 2008). Similar to the concerns of Bourdieu’s sociology, critical discourse analysis holds that texts and/or interactions with them utilise embodied approaches that operate in different social fields (Seale 2004).

Critical discourse also draws some of its facets from the ideologies of the neo-Marxist theory of culture, which assumes that discourses are created and utilised in the political economy. This observation perhaps explains its particular focus on political motives. Thus, it is different from discourse analysis to the extent that it has specific areas of interest.

Discourse analysis focuses on a variety of genres, including phonology, pragmatics, communication ethnography, conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis, rhetoric, text linguistics, and functional grammar amongst others (Bromley 2001; Crang & Cook 2007). Hence, critical discourse analysis is a genre of discourse analysis.

Considering that discourse analysis has a variety of genres, including critical discourse analysis, the difference between the two concepts is clear with reference to the structures and the main concerns of the critical discourse analysis. Practice techniques that are deployed in critical discourse analysis are borrowed from interdisciplinary fields.

For example, just like in the case of pragmatics, the theory of speech acts, and narratology, which are advanced in discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis holds that texts comprise a complex mechanism for social actions, which take place in sophisticated contexts on a social platform (Gee 2005).

Functional linguistics studies depict the manner in which language forms can relate to achieve ideological functions. The theory is used in the critical discourse analysis as an analytic tool for establishing the relations between culture, politics, gender, and social classes.

Critical discourse analysis acknowledges the existence of asymmetries in resources and power among different speakers, including people who listen to them. It holds that writers and readers have unequal accessibility to social and linguistic resources, a situation that reveals their differences in social contexts.

From the paradigms of discourse analysis, discussion combines with languages to influence the ideologies of people’s daily affairs and hence the asymmetry that is evident between textual portrayals and the relations of power. The CDA is both constructive and deconstructive.

From the paradigms of power and textual portrayals, in a deconstructive approach, CDA renders power relationship themes problematic in a society as expressed through written texts and talks. In a constructive approach, it advocates the increased development of critical skills that are necessary for the analysis of discourses and various social relations to ensure equity in terms of resource distribution (Keller 2011).

Discourse analysis deploys text as its main unit of analysis. This approach differs from discourse analysis, which can use a sound and its patterns, textual frameworks, and rhetoric in the analysis. CDA considers texts social actions that form meaningful and reasoned printed and verbal language.

However, it does not consider textual forms random in nature. Specific types of texts do certain things within various social institutions. They can help to predict material effects in qualitative researches (Denzin & Lincoln 2005). Under critical discourses, studies are dynamic. They continue undergoing processes of reinvention and innovations.

From the paradigms of discourse analysis, all genres can be adequately analysed via studying language structures such as prepositions and microstructures of the texts. The discourse reveals how written and verbal languages possess various identifiable segments and movements. For example, a scientific text can be interpreted as a series of actions that have been joined by a set of chains.

CDA can focus on word-level and sentence-level analysis. It does this by using analysis approaches derived from functional linguistics studies. Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) support this assertion by adding that grammatical combined with various lexical textual features possess different identifiable functionalities. They can explain the natural and social world.

They create different effects on social relations through the conventions that form coherency in texts that are deployed in a given media. Critical discourse analysis focuses on identifying these effects.

Under discourse examination, verbal texts depict some chosen perspectives of the natural world to help in explaining the social world. Therefore, through texts, people can position others to align with identifiable relations that are consistent with power differences that exist among them.

Language employment in writing and speech (discourse) constitutes a social practice. Discursive events shape social structures and/or institutions. This claim suggests that discourse is socially conditioned and that may be socially constitutive. Since it reproduces the status quo, it contributes to its transformation.

Discursive events also play the role of reproducing varying power relations among different classes of people in the society (Fairclough 2000).

Depending on the academic culture under investigation, different linguistic scholars can use the term discourse in different contexts. For example, German linguistic scholars distinguish discourses from texts, depending on the relationship between traditional text linguistics and language rhetoric. However, in English-speaking nations, discourses imply oral communication and written texts.

It is possible to consider a transcript a tangible comprehension of conceptual structures of knowledge. However, amid these differences, discourses encompass a form of memory and knowledge bases that are manifested in the form of power differences that are witnessed in talks and in written texts (Reisigl & Wodak 2001). However, critical discourse analysis focuses on structures of talks and written texts.

Dominance reproduction is a major aim of CDA. Dominance has reception together with reproduction as two important perspectives in its contribution to power differences. This observation suggests that CDA analysis focuses on the legitimisation and the expression of dominance in different structures of talks and texts.

Reproduction of various discursive events in CDA emanates from power differences that are manifested in the form of social cognition power among some groups over others. As studied from the paradigms of discourse analysis, discourse structures translate into social cognitions while social cognitions in CDA produce power imbalances.

Therefore, under the two approaches, researchers struggle with establishing the relationships between cognition and the discourses. However, under both CDA and discourse analysis, discourse structures play the role of mediation. Thus, they are mechanisms for reproducing dominance in written texts and speeches.

In the context of dominance, CDA differs from DA in its emphasis on power variations among different groups of people who interact in social contexts through talk and written texts. To this extent, Fairclough (2000, p.103) reckon, ‘members of less powerful groups may also otherwise be more or less dominated in discourse’. This claim implies that in all levels of talks and texts, participants who possess influential power control freedom.

Consequently, in CDA, language does not possess any power of its own. It acquires it when it interacts with high-ranking people. This observation perhaps reveals why CDA conducts the analysis of discourse from the perspective of distinguished people. Such people carry the load when it comes to inequality issues. They solely have the ability to improve social conditions.

Discourse, which denotes language use in talk and written texts, can be studied from the paradigm of discourse analysis (DA) and critical discourse analysis (CDA).

Discourse analysis constitutes a variety of genres such as phonology, pragmatics, and critical discourse analysis among many other genres that study language use in social contexts. CDA is a genre of DA. CDA focuses on political motives in language use, which is manifested through power differences that create the dominance of different groups in social communication contexts.

Blommaert, J 2005, Discourse , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bromley, D 2001, Toward reflexive ethnography , JAI, London.

Bryman, A 2008, Social research methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Crang, M & Cook, I 2007, Doing ethnographies, Sage, London.

Denzin, N & Lincoln, Y 2005, The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, Sage, London.

Eisenhart, C & Barbara, J 2008, Discourse Analysis and Rhetorical Studies: Rhetoric in Detail: Discourse Analyses of Rhetorical Talk and Text , John Benjamins Publishers, New York, NY.

Fairclough, N 2000, The discourse of social exclusion: Approaches in Critical Discourse Analysis , Passagen Verlag, Vienna.

Gee, J 2005, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis , Routledge, London.

Halliday, M & Matthiessen, C 2004, An Introduction to Functional Grammar , Arnold, London.

Keller, R 2011, ‘The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD)’, Human Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 43-65.

Reisigl, M & Wodak, R 2001, Discourse and Discrimination , Routledge, London.

Renkema, J 2004, Introduction to Discourse Studies , Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Ritchie, J & Lewis, J 2003, Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, Sage, London.

Ross, K & Nightingale, V 2003, Media and Audiences New Perspectives , Open University Press, Virginia.

Seale, C 2004, Social research methods: a reader , Routledge, London.

Silverman, D 2005, Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook, Sage, London.

Wood, L & Kroger, R 2000, Doing Discourse Analysis , Sage Publishers, London.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 15). Critical Discourse Analysis. https://ivypanda.com/essays/critical-discourse-analysis/

"Critical Discourse Analysis." IvyPanda , 15 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/critical-discourse-analysis/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Critical Discourse Analysis'. 15 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Critical Discourse Analysis." December 15, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/critical-discourse-analysis/.

1. IvyPanda . "Critical Discourse Analysis." December 15, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/critical-discourse-analysis/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Critical Discourse Analysis." December 15, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/critical-discourse-analysis/.

• CDA Protects Social Media Companies
• Political Implications of Commedia Dell’Arte
• Terrorist Groups: Critical Discourse Analysis
• "What Syria Needs Now?" by David Miliband
• The Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union Case
• Defamation on the Internet
• Cultural Philosophy in the Twenty First Century
• The Internet and Freedom of Speech: Ethics and Restrictions
• Colgate Brand's Promotional Strategy
• English Literature Impact on Racism Among Africans
• Problem of Racial Slurs in Australia
• "Immigrant Workers Cleaning and Caring in the Shadows of Affluence" by Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo
• Women in Asian Literature in The Tale of Kieu by Du Nguyen and the play The love suicide at Amijima
• Magical Realism: Garcia Marquez
• Bamako: Movie Concept and Theme

Online Plagiarism Checker for Academic Assignments

Start Plagiarism Check

Editing & Proofreading for your Academic Assignments

Get it proofread now

Free Express Delivery to All Places in Canada

Configure binding now

• Academic essay overview
• The writing process
• Structuring academic essays
• Types of academic essays
• Academic writing overview
• Sentence structure
• Academic writing process
• Improving your academic writing
• Titles and headings
• APA style overview
• APA citation & referencing
• APA structure & sections
• Citation & referencing
• Structure and sections
• APA examples overview
• Commonly used citations
• Other examples
• British English vs. American English
• Chicago style overview
• Chicago citation & referencing
• Chicago structure & sections
• Chicago style examples
• Citing sources overview
• Citation format
• Citation examples
• College essay overview
• Application
• How to write a college essay
• Types of college essays
• Commonly confused words
• Definitions
• Dissertation overview
• Dissertation structure & sections
• Dissertation writing process
• Graduate school overview
• Application & admission
• Study abroad
• Harvard referencing overview
• Language rules overview
• Grammatical rules & structures
• Parts of speech
• Punctuation
• Methodology overview
• Analyzing data
• Experiments
• Observations
• Inductive vs. Deductive
• Qualitative vs. Quantitative
• Types of validity
• Types of reliability
• Sampling methods
• Theories & Concepts
• Types of research studies
• Types of variables
• MLA style overview
• MLA examples
• MLA citation & referencing
• MLA structure & sections
• Plagiarism overview
• Plagiarism checker
• Types of plagiarism
• Printing production overview
• Research bias overview
• Types of research bias
• Research paper structure & sections
• Types of research papers
• Research process overview
• Problem statement
• Research proposal
• Research topic
• Statistics overview
• Levels of measurment
• Measures of central tendency
• Measures of variability
• Hypothesis testing
• Parameters & test statistics
• Types of distributions
• Correlation
• Effect size
• Hypothesis testing assumptions
• Types of ANOVAs
• Types of chi-square
• Statistical data
• Statistical models
• Spelling mistakes
• Tips overview
• Academic writing tips
• Dissertation tips
• Sources tips
• Working with sources overview
• Evaluating sources
• Finding sources
• Including sources
• Types of sources

Discourse Analysis – Definition & How to Do It

How do you like this article cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Discourse analysis utilizes a unique methodology designed to reveal the underlying significance of both written and spoken language. This methodology is often a focal point of study in higher education courses related to humanities, linguistics, or social sciences.

In this piece, we will delve into the specific applications and nuances of discourse analysis, providing a detailed, step-by-step guide to assist you in incorporating this methodology into your scholarly work.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• 1 Discourse Analysis – In a Nutshell
• 2 Definition: Discourse analysis
• 3 What is discourse analysis used for?
• 4 Discourse analysis vs. other methods
• 5 Discourse analysis: Step-by-step
• 6 Discourse analysis: Advantages vs. disadvantages

Discourse Analysis – In a Nutshell

• Discourse analysis can reveal deep motivations and meanings behind written and spoken language.
• This technique is useful to students taking humanities, linguistics, or social sciences courses.
• Learning to use discourse analysis can enrich your academic work.

Definition: Discourse analysis

Discourse analysis, which is sometimes abbreviated as DA, is a set of research methodologies created to uncover deep layers of meaning in different forms of speech, whether they are written or spoken.

As a research method, discourse analysis does not simply analyze language. Instead, it’s a tool that can reveal how language is used to express meaning and/or to achieve specific communicative goals.

You can apply different methods and perspectives to discourse analysis.

Discourse can be analyzed by taking into account the premises and assumptions of critical studies, anthropology, applied linguistics, sociology, translation studies, communication science, and psychology.

What is discourse analysis used for?

In academia, discourse analysis plays an important role in helping reveal nuances that can be very valuable in qualitative research . As such, it is commonly used by students of history, politics, sociology, linguistics, or gender studies to analyze past or current examples of discourse and to draw conclusions about the links between language and society.

As a student, you would want to use discourse analysis methodologies to reach a deeper level of analysis that can have a positive impact on your grades.

Discourse analysis vs. other methods

Discourse analysis is not the only methodology that studies language. However, it substantially differs from other methods, like grammar analysis. While the latter is concerned with grammatical or syntactical structure, discourse analysis helps the researcher or student dig deep under such structures to find meaningful insights.

Another difference is that language-focused analysis techniques tend to study language components in isolation, whereas discourse analysis takes those elements and evaluates them considering the context in which they happen.

In addition, discourse analysis examines authentic forms of language as they occur in real life, while researchers or students using other methods are more likely to create their own samples and examples.

Discourse analysis: Step-by-step

1. Define your primary questions

If you’re using discourse analysis as a research tool, you’ll want to frame your research with one or two relevant research questions. This will help you stay on topic and bring coherence to your work.

2. Choose your analytical approach

Next, you want to choose an analytical approach that will help shape and guide your discourse assessment. Which approach you choose will depend on your course and degree subject. For example, if you’re studying anthropology, you could choose to interpret your discourse analysis findings based on postmodernist theory. Or if you’re studying media and communication, you could choose a semiotic approach.

3. Collect your data

This is where you gather your research materials, which can be written texts, conversation transcripts, videos, speeches, debates, etc.

4. Define the context

Be as specific as you can about the context in which the discourse takes place. Here you can consider social, political, historical, or geographical data. Then, you can start making hypotheses as to how context influences discourse, and vice versa.

5. Code your data

Coding means systematically tagging research data, based on meaningful categories. For example, if you were analyzing a political speech, you could create various data categories based on the themes that keep appearing throughout the speech (e.g. democracy, community, identity), then you would find all statements relevant to each theme.

Also, make sure the themes are related to your research question/s.

6. Look for patterns

Go over your coded materials and try to find recurring patterns. Are certain words, sentences, or ideas repeated? If you’re analyzing conversations, does one person dominate the interaction? Are there silences or pauses?

7. Analyze language use

Here, you go into detail about the various aspects of language use, such as metaphors, jargon, use of active and passive voice, use of persuasive statements, etc.

8. Interpret your findings

Keeping your research data and analytical framework in mind, try to uncover the meaning of the discourse you’re analyzing, always relative to your research question/s. Make sure you present evidence in support of your interpretation.

9. Summarize your findings

You can close a discourse analysis exercise with a summary of your findings and suggest areas for potential future research.

Discourse analysis: Advantages vs. disadvantages

What are the types of discourse analysis.

In academic settings, there are four main types of discourse analysis:

• Focuses on analyzing how language is used to describe the characteristics of people, objects, concepts, or events.
• Attempts to uncover the underlying story behind a text, speech, or communicative interaction.
• Explores how language is used to tilt the audience in favor or against a topic or issue.
• Examines language-in-use and how it conveys information.

Does discourse analysis only study language?

Not exclusively. In some cases, discourse analysis methodologies analyze non-verbal factors (such as body language or intonation) in order to reveal the rich meaning behind communicative acts.

What are the three most important factors in discourse analysis?

The context in which discourse takes place, as well as the patterns and themes that emerge from language use.

Does discourse analysis have applications outside academia?

Yes, it is also used by political analysts, in social policy, and in marketing research.

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential, while others help us to improve this website and your experience.

• External Media

Individual Privacy Preferences

Cookie Details Privacy Policy Imprint

Here you will find an overview of all cookies used. You can give your consent to whole categories or display further information and select certain cookies.

Accept all Save

Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.

Show Cookie Information Hide Cookie Information

Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us to understand how our visitors use our website.

Content from video platforms and social media platforms is blocked by default. If External Media cookies are accepted, access to those contents no longer requires manual consent.

Privacy Policy Imprint

Discourse Analysis as a Research Strategy

• First Online: 14 September 2019

Cite this chapter

• Kennet Lynggaard 5  

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics ((PSEUP))

1838 Accesses

This chapter elaborates on the distinctiveness of discourse analysis as a research strategy. The chapter argues in favour of moving beyond otherwise fixed methodological positions by elaborating compound research strategies directed at the specific research question at hand. In doing so, the chapter discusses the challenges associated with conducting discourse analysis, including those associated with the role of agency and structure, how to approach the study of discursive conflicts and consensus making, causality and causal mechanisms, the choice of an analytical time dimension, and how discourse analysis may speak to other types of theoretical and analytical frameworks. The chapter concludes by outlining a general framework for analysis binding together the concepts of ideas, discourse and institution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Andersen, N. Å. (1995). Selvskabt forvaltning: Forvaltningspolitikkens og central forvaltningens udvikling i Danmark 1900–1994 . København: Nyt fra Samfundsvidenskaberne.

Google Scholar  

Andersen, N. Å., & Kjær, P. (1996). Institutional Construction and Change: An Analytical Strategy of Institutional History (COS-Rapport No. 5/1996).

Bacchi, C. (2004). Policy and Discourse: Challenging the Construction of Affirmative Action as Preferential Treatment. Journal of European Public Policy, 11 (1), 128–146.

Article   Google Scholar  

Banta, B. (2013). Analysing Discourse as a Causal Mechanism. European Journal of International Relations, 19 (2), 379–402.

Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics . Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Biegon, D. (2013). Specifying the Arena of Possibilities: Post-structuralist Narrative Analysis and the European Commission’s Legitimation Strategies. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51 (2), 194–211.

Blyth, M. (2002). Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crespy, A. (2010). When “Bolkestein” Is Trapped by the French Anti-liberal Discourse: A Discursive-Institutionalist Account of Preference Formation in the Realm of European Union Multi-level Politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 17 (8), 1253–1270.

Dimitrova, A., & Kortenska, E. (2017). What Do Citizens Want? And Why Does It Matter? Discourses Among Citizens as Opportunities and Constraints for EU Enlargement. Journal of European Public Policy, 24 (2), 259–277.

Flockhart, T. (2005). Critical Junctures and Social Identity Theory: Explaining the Gap Between Danish Mass and Elite Attitudes to Europeanization. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43 (2), 251–271.

Foucault, M. (1991). Politics and the Study of Discourse. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (pp. 53–72). London, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Friedrichs, J., & Kratochwil, F. (2009). On Acting and Knowing: How Pragmatism Can Advance International Relations Research and Methodology. International Organization, 63 (4), 701–731.

Hajer, M. A. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process . Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hajer, M. A. (2005). Coalitions, Practices, and Meaning in Environmental Politics: From Acid Rain to BSE. In D. Howarth & J. Torfing (Eds.), Discourse Theory in European Politics: Identity, Policy and Governance (pp. 297–315). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Hansen, L. (2006). Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War . London: Routledge.

Haverland, M. (2007). Methodology. In P. Graziano & M. P. Vink (Eds.), Europeanization: New Research Agendas (pp. 59–70). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hay, C., & Smith, N. (2005). Horses for Courses? The Political Discourse of Globalisation and European Integration in the UK and Ireland. West European Politics, 24 (1), 124–158.

Hay, C., & Smith, N. (2010). How Policy-Makers (Really) Understand Globalization: The International Architecture of Anglophone Globalization Discourse in Europe. Public Administration, 88 (4), 903–927.

Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (1998). Social Mechanisms: An Introductory Essay. In P. Hedström & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Social Mechanisms (pp. 1–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Herranz-Surrallés, A. (2012). Justifying Enlargement in a Multi-level Polity: A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis of the Elites-Public Gap over European Union Enlargement. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50 (3), 385–402.

Holzscheiter, A. (2011). Power of Discourse or Discourse of the Powerful? The Reconstruction of Global Childhood Norms in the Drafting of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Journal of Language and Politics, 10 (1), 1–28.

Hurrelmann, A., Gora, A., & Wagner, A. (2013). The Legitimation of the European Union in the News Media: Three Treaty Reform Debates. Journal of European Public Policy, 20 (4), 515–534.

Jachtenfuchs, M. (2002). Deepening and Widening Integration Theory. Journal of European Public Policy, 9 (4), 650–657.

Jachtenfuchs, M., Diez, T., & Jung, S. (1998). Which Europe? Conflicting Models of a Legitimate European Political Order. European Journal of International Relations, 4 (4), 409–449.

Jackson, P. T. (2011). The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics . New York: Routledge.

Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2010). A Narrative Policy Framework: Clear Enough to Be Wrong. Policy Studies Journal, 38 (2), 329–353.

Kenny, M. (2015). The Return of “Englishness” in British Political Culture: The End of the Unions? Journal of Common Market Studies, 53 (1), 35–51.

Kjær, P., & Pedersen, O. K. (2001). Translating Liberalization: Neoliberalism in the Danish Negotiated Economy. In J. L. Campbell & O. K. Pedersen (Eds.), The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis (pp. 219–248). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lynggaard, K. (2006). The Common Agricultural Policy and Organic Farming: An Institutional Perspective on Continuity and Change . Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Lynggaard, K. (2011). Domestic Change in the Face of European Integration and Globalization: Methodological Pitfalls and Pathways. Comparative European Politics, 9 (1), 18–37.

Lynggaard, K. (2012). Discursive Institutional Analytical Strategies. In T. Exadaktylos & C. M. Radaelli (Eds.), Research Design in European Studies: Establishing Causality in Europeanization (pp. 85–104). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lynggaard, K. (2013). Elite Decision Makers’ Strategic Use of European Integration and Globalisation Discourses: Irish and Danish Banking Sector Reforms in the 1990s and 2000s. New Political Economy, 18 (6), 862–884.

Macartney, H. (2011). Variegated Neoliberalism: EU Varieties of Capitalism and International Political Economy . London and New York: Routledge.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Princen, S. (2013). Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 20 (6), 854–870.

Quaglia, L., & Howarth, D. (2018). The Policy Narratives of European Capital Markets Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 25 (7), 990–1009.

Rosamond, B. (2000). Theories of European Integration . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Schmidt, V. A. (2003). How, Where, and When Does Discourse Matter in Small States’ Welfare Adjustment. New Political Economy, 8 (1), 127–146.

Schmidt, V. A. (2007). Trapped by Ideas: French Elites Discourses on European Integration and Globalization. Journal of European Public Policy, 14 (7), 992–1009.

Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326.

Schmidt, V. A. (2010). Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change Through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth New Institutionalism. European Political Science Review, 2 (1), 1–25.

Schmidt, V. A. (2017). Theorizing Ideas and Discourse in Political Science: Intersubjectivity, Neo-Institutionalisms, and the Power of Ideas. Critical Review, 29 (2), 248–263.

Schmidt, V. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2004). Policy Change and Discourse in Europe: Conceptual and Methodological Issues. West European Politics, 27 (2), 183–211.

Schmidt, V. A., & Thatcher, M. (Eds.). (2013). Resilient Liberalism in Europe’s Political Economy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, N., & Hay, C. (2008). Mapping the Political Discourse of Globalisation and European Integration in the United Kingdom and Ireland Empirically. European Journal of Political Research, 47 (3), 359–382.

Stratigaki, M. (2005). Gender Mainstreaming vs Positive Action: An Ongoing Conflict in EU Gender Equality Policy. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 12 (2), 165–186.

Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (2005). Introduction: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economy. In W. Streeck & K. Thelen (Eds.), Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies (pp. 1–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vetters, R., Jentges, E., & Trenz, H.-J. (2009). Whose Project Is It? Media Debates on the Ratification of the EU Constitutional Treaty. Journal of European Public Policy, 16 (3), 412–430.

Warren, T., Holden, P., & Howell, K. E. (2017). The European Commission and Fiscal Governance Reform: A Strategic Actor? West European Politics, 40 (6), 1310–1330.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark

Kennet Lynggaard

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kennet Lynggaard .

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Lynggaard, K. (2019). Discourse Analysis as a Research Strategy. In: Discourse Analysis and European Union Politics. Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-39326-5_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-39326-5_2

Published : 14 September 2019

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-137-39325-8

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-39326-5

eBook Packages : Political Science and International Studies Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Historical Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Browse content in Art
• History of Art
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Literature
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• History by Period
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Intellectual History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• Political History
• Regional and National History
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Language Teaching and Learning
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Christianity
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Browse content in Law
• Company and Commercial Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Criminal Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Legal System and Practice
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Browse content in Economics
• Economic History
• Browse content in Education
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Browse content in Politics
• Asian Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• European Union
• Human Rights and Politics
• International Relations
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Public Policy
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Sociology of Religion
• Reviews and Awards
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Discourse Analysis: An Introduction

• Cite Icon Cite

The book provides an accessible state-of-the-art discussion of current trends in the theory, method and tools for the language-focused analysis of text and discourse. The exposition is combined with close analyses of a wide range of texts, e.g. narrative and non-narrative, spoken and written, from a variety of communication contexts and discourse types. The presentation is based on the fundamental distinction of two discourse modes, namely the narrative and non-narrative modes. The book is suitable for students and teachers of linguistics, including discourse analysis, textlinguistics, pragmatics and sociolinguistics, as well as for students across humanities and social science disciplines with an interest in the linguistic methods of discourse analysis. It includes guided activities for self-study or use in a classroom and suggestions for further reading at the end of each chapter.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Welcome to PoliticsEastAsia: a network for East Asia scholars and enthusiasts

How to Do a Discourse Analysis

A toolbox for analysing political texts.

Discourse analysis is a useful tool for studying the political meanings that inform written and spoken text. In other posts, I have provided a quick video introduction to the topic, and have discussed the ideas behind discourse theory , the main questions that students and researchers will likely ask as they set up their discourse analysis project , and the things that are worth keeping in mind when working with East Asian language sources . In this post, I offer a handy set of tools for doing a text-based, qualitative discourse analysis. The idea of a discourse toolbox comes from Siegfried Jäger, but I have expanded his approach based on my own experience and the works of other discourse analysts such as Paul Chilton (2004) and Norman Fairclough (1994).

You can go through the whole list of work-steps and tick each item off in turn, which is a good way to practice these methods. However, if you are conducting a specific research project, I would recommend adapting this toolbox to your own needs and tailoring it to fit your concerns. At the end of this post, you will also find a few comments on the limitations of this toolbox plus a list of literature that you can turn to if you want to learn more.

Getting technical: discourse analysis in ten steps

So you have formulated a research question, have collected source material, and are now ready to roll up your sleeves and dig into your sources. But how do you make sure that you have covered all your bases and that you will later be able to make a good case for yourself and your work? Here are ten work steps that will help you conduct a systematic and professional discourse analysis.

1) Establish the context

Before you start chiselling away at your source material, jot down where the material comes from and how it fits into the big picture . You should ask yourself what the social and historical context is in which each of your sources was produced. Write down what language your source is written in, what country and place it is from, who wrote it (and when), and who published it (and when). Also try to have a record of when and how you got your hands on your sources, and to explain where others might find copies. Finally, find out whether your sources are responses to any major event , whether they tie into broader debates , and how they were received at the time of publication.

2) Explore the production process

You have already recorded who wrote and published your sources, but you still need to do a more thorough background check . Try to find additional information on the producer of your source material, as well as their institutional and personal background. For example, if you are analysing news articles, take a look at the kind of newspaper that the articles are from (Jäger 2004: 175): Who are the author and the editorial staff, what is the general political position of the paper, and what is its affiliation with other organizations? Are any of the people who are involved in the production process known for their journalistic style or their political views? Is there any information on the production expenditures and general finances of the paper? Do you know who the general target audience of the paper is? In many cases, media outlets themselves provide some of this information online, for instance in the “about” sections of their websites. In other cases, you will find such information in the secondary academic literature. Don’t hesitate to write the editors an email or call them up: personal interviews can be a great way to explore production backgrounds.

Once you have established the institutional background, take notes on the medium and the genre you are working with. Some scholars go as far to argue that “the medium is the message” (McLuhan 1964/2001), or in other words that the medium in which information is presented is the crucial element that shapes meaning. While I am skeptical of such extreme technological determinism, I do agree that the medium matters : reading an article online is not the same as reading it in a printed newspaper, or in a hardcover collection of essays. Make sure to identify the different media types in which your source appeared, and to also be clear about the version that you yourself are analysing.

For instance, the layout of a newspaper article and its position on the page will be different in a print edition than in an online edition. The latter will also offer comments, links, multi-media content, etc. All of these factors frame the meaning of the actual text and should be considered in an analysis. This may also mean that you should think about the technical quality and readability of your source, for instance by looking at paper quality (or resolution for online sources), type set, etc. You should also take notes on the length of your source (number of pages and/or words) and any additional features of the medium that might contribute to or shape meaning (such as images).

Finally, ask yourself what genre your source belongs to. Are you analysing an editorial comment, and op-ed, a reader’s letter, a commentary, a news item, a report, an interview, or something else? Establishing this background information will later help you assess what genre-specific mechanism your source deploys (or ignores) to get its message across.

3) Prepare your material for analysis

In order to analyse the actual text, it is wise to prepare it in a way that will allow you to work with the source, home in on specific details, and make precise references later. If you are working with a hard copy I would recommend making a number of additional copies of your source material, so that you can write on these versions and mark important features . If you haven’t already, try to digitize your source or get a digital copy. Then add references that others can use to follow your work later: add numbers for lines, headers, paragraphs, figures, or any other features that will help you keep your bearings.

4) Code your material

When you code data, it means that you are assigning attributes to specific units of analysis, such as paragraphs, sentences, or individual words. Think of how many of us tag online information like pictures, links, or articles. Coding is simply an academic version of this tagging process.

For instance, you might be analysing a presidential speech to see what globalization discourse it draws from. It makes sense to mark all statements in the speech that deal with globalization and its related themes (or discourse strands ). Before you start with this process, you need to come up with your coding categories . The first step is to outline a few such categories theoretically: based on the kind of question you are asking, and your knowledge of the subject matter, you will already have a few key themes in mind that you expect to find, for instance “trade”, “migration”, “transportation”, “communication”, and so on. A thorough review of the secondary literature on your topic will likely offer inspiration. Write down your first considerations, and also write down topics that you think might be related to these key themes. These are your starting categories.

You then go over the text to see if it contains any of these themes. Take notes on the ones that are not included, since you may have to delete these categories later. Other categories might be too broad, so try breaking them down into sub-categories. Also, the text may include interesting themes that you did not expect to find, so jot down any such additional discourse strands. At the end of this first review, revise your list of coding categories to reflect your findings. If you are working with several documents, repeat the process for each of them, until you have your final list of coding categories. This is what Mayring (2002: 120) calls  evolutionary coding , since your categories evolve from theoretical considerations into a full-fledged operational list based on empirical data .

How the actual coding process works will depend on the tools you use. You can code paper-based sources by highlighting text sections in different colours, or by jotting down specific symbols. If you are working with a computer, you can similarly highlight text sections in a word processor. In either case, the risk is that you will not be able to represent multiple categories adequately, for instance when a statement ties into three or four discourse strands at once. You could mark individual words, but this might not be ideal if you want to see how the discourse works within the larger sentence structure, and how discourse strands overlap.

A real alternative is using other types of software. If you have access to professional research programmes like NVivo , then the software already has built-in coding mechanisms that you can customize and use. There is also open-source software available, for instance the Mac programme TAMS , but I have not tested their functionality. However, even if you only have regular office tools at your disposal, such as Microsoft’s Office or a Mac equivalent, there are at least two ways in which you can code material.

The first is to copy your text into an Excel table. Place the text in one column and use the next column to add the coding categories. You’ll of course have to decide where the line-breaks should be. A sensible approach is to place each sentence of your original text on a new line, but you could also choose smaller units of text.

Another tool that provides coding assistance is Microsoft OneNote 2010, or the Mac equivalent Growly Notes . In OneNote , you can right click anywhere in the text and select “tag” to assign a category to any sentence. You can also customize your tags, create new ones, and easily search and monitor your coding categories and activities. The downside is that you can only tag full sentences, not single words or phrases, but depending on your intentions, this may not be a crucial drawback.

5) Examine the structure of the text

Now that you have prepared your materials and have coded the discourse strands, it is time to look at the structural features of the texts. Are there sections that overwhelmingly deal with one discourse? Are there ways in which different discourse strands overlap in the text? See if you can identify how the argument is structured: does the text go through several issues one by one? Does it first make a counter-factual case, only to then refute that case and make the main argument? You should at this point also consider how the headers and other layout features guide the argument, and what role the introduction and conclusion play in the overall scheme of things.

6) Collect and examine discursive statements

Once you have a good idea of the macro-features of your text, you can zoom in on the individual statements, or discourse fragments . A good way to do this is to collect all statements with a specific code, and to examine what they have to say on the respective discourse strand. This collection of statements will allow you to map out what “truths” the text establishes on each major topic.

7) Identify cultural references

You have already established what the context of your source material is. Now think about how the context informs the argument . Does your material contain references to other sources, or imply knowledge of another subject matter? What meaning does the text attribute to such other sources? Exploring these questions will help you figure out what function  intertextuality serves in light of the overall argument.

8) Identify linguistic and rhetorical mechanisms

The next step in your analysis is likely going to be the most laborious, but also the most enlightening when it comes to exploring how a discourse works in detail. You will need to identify how the various statements function at the level of language . In order to do this, you may have to use additional copies of your text for each work-step, or you may need to create separate coding categories for your digital files. Here are some of the things you should be on the lookout for:

• Word groups: does the text deploy words that have a common contextual background? For instance, the vocabulary may be drawn directly from military language, or business language, or highly colloquial youth language. Take a closer look at nouns, verbs, and adjectives in your text and see if you find any common features. Such regularities can shed light on the sort of logic that the text implies. For example, talking about a natural disaster in the language of war creates a very different reasoning than talking about the same event in religious terms.
• Grammar features: check who or what the subjects and objects in the various statements are. Are there any regularities, for instance frequently used pronouns like “we” and “they”? If so, can you identify who the protagonists and antagonists are? A look at adjectives and adverbs might tell you more about judgements that the text passes on these groups. Also, take a closer look at the main and auxiliary verbs that the text uses, and check what tense they appear in. Particularly interesting are active versus passive phrases – does the text delete actors from its arguments by using passive phrases? A statement like “we are under economic pressure” is very different from “X puts us under economic pressure”… particularly if “X” is self-inflicted. Passive phrases and impersonal chains of nouns are a common way to obscure relationships behind the text and shirk responsibility. Make such strategies visible through your analysis.
• Rhetorical and literary figures: see if you can identify and mark any of the following five elements in your text: allegories, metaphors, similes, idioms, and proverbs. Take a look at how they are deployed in the service of the overall argument. Inviting the reader to entertain certain associations, for instance in the form of an allegory, helps construct certain kinds of categories and relations, which in turn shape the argument. For instance, if I use a simile that equates the state with a parent, and the citizens with children, then I am not only significantly simplifying what is actually a very complex relationship, I am also conjuring up categories and relationships that legitimize certain kinds of politics, for instance strict government intervention in the social sphere. Once you have checked for the five elements listed above, follow up by examining additional rhetorical figures to see how these frame the meaning of specific statements. Things to look for include parallelisms, hyperboles, tri-colons, synecdoches, rhetorical questions, and anaphora, to name only the most common.
• Direct and indirect speech: does the text include quotes? If so, are they paraphrased or are they cited as direct speech? In either case, you should track down the original phrases to see what their context was, and what function they now play in your source material.
• Modalities: see if the text includes any statements on what “should” or “could” be. Such phrases may create a sense of urgency, serve as a call to action, or imply hypothetical scenarios.
• Evidentialities: lastly, are there any phrases in the text that suggest factuality? Sample phrases might include “of course”, “obviously”, or “as everyone knows”. A related question then is what kinds of “facts” the text actually presents in support of its argument. Does the text report factuality, actively demonstrate it, or merely suggested it as self-evident? One of the strongest features of discourse is how it “naturalizes” certain statements as “common sense” or “fact”, even if the statements are actually controversial (and in discourse theory, all statements are controversial). Be on the look-out for such discursive moves.

9) Interpret the data

You now have all the elements of your analysis together, but the most important question still remains: what does it all mean? In your interpretation, you need to tie all of your results together in order to explain that the discourse is about, and how it works. This means combing your knowledge of structural features and individual statements, and then placing those findings into the broader context that you established at the beginning. Throughout this process, keep the following questions in mind: who created the material you are analysing? What is their position on the topic you examined? How do their arguments draw from and in turn contribute to commonly accepted knowledge of the topic at the time and in the place that this argument was made? And maybe most importantly: who might benefit from the discourse that your sources construct?

10) Present your findings

Once you have the answer to your original question, it is time to get your results across to your target audience. If you have conducted a good analysis, then you now have a huge amount of notes from which you can build your presentation, paper, or thesis. Make sure to stress the relevance , and to move through your analysis based on the issues that you want to present. Always ask yourself: what is interesting about my findings, and why should anyone care? A talk or a paper that simply lists one discourse feature after another is tedious to follow, so try to focus on making a compelling case . You can then add evidence from your work as needed, for instance by adding original and translated examples to illustrate your point. For some academic papers, particularly graduation theses, you may want to compile the full account of your data analysis in an appendix or some other separate file so that your assessors can check your work.

Mind the limitations:

Discourse analysis offers a powerful toolbox for analysing political communication, but it also has its pitfalls . Aside from being very work-intensive , the idea that you only need to follow a certain number of steps to get your results can be misleading. A methodology is always only as good as your question . If your question does not lend itself to this sort of analysis, or if many of the steps I list above do not apply to you, then come up with an approach that suits your project. Don’t be a methodologist : someone who jumps at a set of methods and applies them to everything in a blind fit of activism. Always remain critical of your own work.

This means being mindful of the shortcomings in your approach, so that you do not end up making claims that your material does not support. A common mistake is to claim that a discourse analysis shows what people think or believe (or worse: what entire societies think or believe). Discourse analysis is a form of content analysis. It is not a tool to analyse the impact of media on audience members. No amount of discourse analysis can provide adequate evidence on what goes on in people’s heads .

What we can learn from a discourse analysis is how specific actors construct an argument , and how this argument fits into wider social practices . More importantly, we can demonstrate with confidence what kind of statements actors try to establish as self-evident and true . We can show with precision what rhetorical methods they picked to communicate those truths in ways they thought would be effective , plausible , or even natural . And we can reveal how their statements and the frameworks of meaning they draw from proliferate through communication practices.

References:

Chilton, Paul (2004). Analyzing Political Discourse – Theory and Practice. London: Arnold.

Fairclough, Norman (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Jäger, Siegfried (2004). Kritische Diskursanalyse. Eine Einführung. (Discourse Analysis. An Introduction). 4th ed., Münster: UNRAST-Verlag.

Mayring, Philipp (2002). Einführung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung – Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken (Introduction to Qualitative Social Science Research – Instruction Manual to Qualitative Thinking). 5th ed., Basel: Beltz Verlag.

McLuhan, Marshall (1964/2001). Understanding Media. New York: Routledge Classics.

Share This Post, Choose Your Platform!

About the author: florian schneider.

452 Comments

[…] and may want to take a look at my practical tips on how to set up a discourse analysis and at the ten work-steps I recommend for analyzing political […]

[…] contribute to and shape commonly-accepted truths in a society. Such a framework is useful for exploring truth claims and knowledge construction, particularly when the focus lies on who has the power to make certain statements, but it does not […]

[…] particularly in an age of mass-media: the visual. That is why, in this post, I expand the toolbox for discourse analysis that I have introduced in a previous post by adding methods and work-steps that will hopefully not […]

Thank you!! :)

No worries at all. Glad if it helped.

Hi Florian, I’m Danil, from Indonesia, currently working on research related to political discourse. I would really appreciate if you could provide me any information related to political discourse using Vandijk’s apporach’s Sociocognitive. Thanks for your kindness. All the best for u. Lookingforwards to hearing from u soon.

regards, DANIL

Hi Danil, If I understand you correctly, you are looking for authors who discuss Van Dijk’s work, right? I am not sure whether there is one single article that covers his work in general, but you might be interested in the various papers that have cited him or reviewed specific books of his. Here’s a short selection you might find helpful: http://connection.ebscohost.com/tag/VAN%2BDijk%252C%2BTeun . There might be others that you can get to via a targeted web search for articles with the tag “Teun Van Dijk”. Best Florian

Many thanks indeed Florian, So sorry, It has been very longtime since I’ve never looked over your reply. I’v searched for Van Dijk’s analysis model and got several books. One more thing, I’m and some friends have planned to organize a conference on Critical Discourse, we would really appreciate if you could be one of the key note speakers. We’ll inform you the exact time of the program. Cheers. All the best

Thanks Danil, glad I could be of help. Best Florian

HelloFlorian, I’v made contact with u several times and found your comments and suggestion were very helpful for me. I would really appreciate if you could help me with definitions and short examples of some terms used in Critical Discourse particularly which are introduced by van Dijk: Context models, mental models, experience models, event models. I got confused with their differences. Looking forward to hearing from u . Many thanks indeed Florian.

Best, DANIL

Hi Danil, I’m afraid I’m not familiar with van Dijk’s writings on these concepts. You’ll have to check his work and see what definitions he himself provides. Sorry to not be of more help. Let me know what you find out. Best Florian

Thanks any way Florian. You have been so helpful. I’ll try to find out the meanings of these stuff.

Hi Danil! Hope you must be fine. Well could you please share some of the work of Van Dijk that you have searched and also the research proposals and Research Articles/papers that you have in his domain. Because your area of research and my area of research are similar so we may help and support each other. Thanks in Advance

Hi Florian, I am a student of political science at stockholm university in Sweden. I have not had a clear answer from this question “Discuss what material could be included in the study when using discourse analysis (apart from the attached document). Motivate why the material you suggest should be included. I answered this question two years ago but need some clarification.

Hi Joshua, I’m not sure I can answer your question. This seems like a course assignment, so I assume your instructor had specific things in mind, based on what you’ve been doing in class. It’s hard for me to know what these were. Have you taken a look at my other blog post on setting up a discourse analysis? It includes the kind of questions one should ask while getting ready for such a project. I imagine some of these might connect with what you are expected to write: http://www.politicseastasia.com/studying/setting-up-a-discourse-analysis-of-political-texts-from-east-asia/ . Good luck with the assignment.

Hi Florian, Thank you for your summation of critical discourse analysis. I was struggling to get my head around this concept until I found your blog. Thanks to you I received a very high mark for my masters paper and I am referencing your work for my final masters dissertation.

I appreciate educators who use their vast knowledge to simplify important concepts. This truly is basics of all teaching.

Thanks again Cheers Mary

Hi Mary, Thanks for your kind words. This really means a lot. I’m very glad to hear that you found these materials useful for your graduate studies. Good luck with the write-up of your MA thesis! Florian

[…] my favourite:  ten work-steps on how to do a discourse […]

This is gold! I didn’t know how on Earth to start my discourse analysis assignment until I came across this. It has been a life saver. Wish my tutor had taken the time to break it down like you have. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

Thanks Lauren, it’s good to know that this was useful in your studies. Good luck with the assignment!

Dear Lauren, I am international students in the UK and I also have assignment about discourse analysis excuse me can I have a look to your assignment, please

Best wishes, Nada

Wonderful, cogent, concise description of methodology. My students are thanking you!!

Thanks for the kind words, Patricia. I really appreciate it.

whoa!!! thank yuh i av learnt alot not jus the discourse analysis. ur such a life saver

That’s very kind of you Khadijah. Glad I could help.

This is the most clear and helpful post about discourse analysis I’ve ever read! Thanks a lot for sharing.

Yes, excellent. Many thanks. Reading all the Fairclough and Foucault in the world doesn’t resolve practical issues like how to cite the analyzed content. Does it belong in works cited? Footnotes? Appendix? I can’t seem to find a natural fit for my research.

This is a good question, Katie. The answer depends on how detailed your analysis of the materials is. I have seen undergraduate studies that cite longer sections in the main body and then list the source in the bibliography like any other materials. In some cases, particularly if the project analyses several texts, it may be good to have two sections in the list of references: one for “primary sources”, one for “secondary sources”. Personally, I like to see the materials that were analysed in an appendix (and then listed in the bibliography alongside the secondary sources). For graduate or post-graduate work, it might even be worthwhile expanding such an appendix to include practical work steps, visualisation of the data, or different rounds of coding on the same document. That way the reader (or examiner) can check the thought process behind the research. Just an idea. Hope this helps!

hi sir i am a master student from algeria , first thank you for the article it was realy helpful , second, i am working on female stereotypes in proverbs , since i have a collection of proverbs to analyse my teacher adviced me to ask you how to do so;would you please give me some pieces of advice analyse them .

How to do a discourse analysis by finding the cohesions and the coherences in the article?

Dear Putri, I am not sure I have understood your question correctly – do you mean: how can we study the structure of a text? If that is the case, I would try to identify what each paragraph or section does (e.g. does it functions as an introduction, an argument, a counter-argument, an example, a conclusion?) and would try to establish how the author transitions from one section to the next. You could also go into more detail and check what conjunctions or rhetorical tools the text deploys to provide a sense of flow (for instance, if I write: “Discourse influence language. So it also influences politics”, I have linked two separate claims in a way that is by no means self-evident). Some of the literature that I’ve provided in the list of references includes more sophisticated examples than I can provide here, but I hope these brief notes already help.

Many thanks from Latvia! I have struggled with discourse analysis for about month now and no one could actually tell me what’s it about and how exactly to do the analysis. This really was a lifesaver for my bachelors degree research. Thank You a lot!

Thanks Ilze, I’m glad you found this useful. Good luck with the BA!

Well done, Florian. This is very professional and very helpful. I am teaching discourse analysis to undergraduate business students and now I don’t have to create my own video.

Hi Tina, thanks for the encouraging words. Hope your students enjoy the introduction and video.

Thank you so much. This is so clear and useful for unpicking political text to illuminate power structures and motivations.

[…] widely as their subjects. For scholars interested in digital media content, methods might include discourse analysis, visual communication analysis, iconography, and various tools adopted from the study of […]

Hi, this article is so useful! I am currently conducting discourse analysis of a television travel documentary and was wondering how the stages can be adapted to fit this? Obviously I cannot transcribe and code the hour long programme, so do I therefore transcribe sections which I feel to be most significant and code these? Thanks!

Hi Heidi, This is a good question, and depends a bit on the length of the material and what you are trying to achieve. For cases where you are not interested in a shot-by-shot analysis, I would recommend creating a sequence protocol, and then coding those sequences. I recently did this with a colleague of mine to analyse a lengthy Chinese documentary, and it’s a good way to keep track of the content at a macro-level. You can then “zoom in” on specific sequences and examine them in more detail where it’s useful and necessary, for instance shot-by-shot, or transcribing what was said. I’ve written a bit more about this here: http://www.politicseastasia.com/studying/an-introduction-to-visual-communication-analysis/ The section on “working with moving images” in particular might be of interest to you. Best – FS

Hi Heidi! Hope you must be fine. Well could you please share some of the work that you have researched with reference to Television discourse and also the research proposals and Research Articles/papers that you have in his domain. Because your area of research and my area of research are similar so we may help and support each other. Thanks in Advance

[…] You may want to also take a look at my own discussions of methodology, for instance my blog post on how to do a discourse analysis (which is about methods) or how to set up such an analysis (which includes epistemological […]

Thanks a lot for the great work. I am doing a research on how Twitter was used in Zimbabwe during the 2013 elections. I have collected more than 80 000 tweets over 51 days. My question now is: With such a huge dataset, is it possible to do a proper CDA?

Hi Leonard,

This sounds like a fascinating data set, and I do think it is possible to do a discourse analysis on large amounts of text. However, I would only rely on quantitative tools to highlight keyword distribution and check the general thematic structure of the text corpus. I’d always then follow up by looking at representative (or outlying!) examples in more detail for the qualitative part of the analysis.

By the way, it might also be interesting to see how the people who post these tweets are connected on Twitter, and what kind of networks consequently provide the foundation for the discourse you’re looking at. I can recommend the work by Richard Rogers over at the University of Amsterdam on how to get a handle on such digital methods questions. Oh, and then there’s the very tricky question of reproducing your results without singling out the various posters – if you haven’t read it yet, I can recommend Zimmer’s article on this issue ( http://bit.ly/1hqf1T5 ). Just FYI. :)

Good luck with this fascinating project! Do let me know what you find.

Best – F

Hi. i found this article very helpful. Thanks a lot! I’ve got an assignment on media political discourse. Please, i want to know if making use of critical discourse analysis will be an excellent way of analysing a newspaper article.

Hi Nassy, This all depends on the kind of questions you have regarding the newspaper article. If you are trying to find out what it’s position on a specific issue is, and how the author uses language to establish that position, then a discourse analysis might be worth a try. If you are only looking at a single article, though, I’d be careful not to overstate how that piece contributes to broader discourses. That would require either a wider study, or more information on how relevant this particular article is. As with any other subject area, the success of a paper very much hinges on the research question. The selection of methods (for instance: discourse analysis) should follow from that. All the best Florian

Hi, thanks a lot for this article :) I am actually doing my dissertation on the role of media in environmental protection- using renewable energies…i’m using discourse analysis to analyse newspaper..but i’m a little bit confused..should I separate the analysis of my themes from the grammar part or I mixed both? :s Thnks in advance

Hi Mau, thanks for the question. I think it depends on the kind of dissertation you are writing, and the level of linguistic detail you plan to go into. If you are working on a research MA or PhD, and have a lot of data, then it might indeed be a good idea to write a chapter that collects and discusses recurring grammatical features in the texts, and to then follow this up with a chapter that discusses what discursive positions are constructed through the language (with examples, of course). To be honest, I myself like it when a thesis tells a story, so I would be tempted to combine these two things: you could structure your thesis according to the different themes you are analysing, and then use the grammar parts as evidence and illustration. In a case like that, you could also provide the more technical details and any primary sources in an appendix, so you can readily reference your analytic work without having to reproduce every minute bit in the main text. So as you see, it’s a matter of preference. I would check with your supervisor to see what makes most sense for your case, and whether your examiners have a preference in this regard. You are, after all, writing for a specific audience… Hope this helps! Best- F

Hi Florian,

Your material is very clear and helpful. Are these methods okay to use for interviews that have been written up at masters level. Many Thanks Josh.

Hi Josh, Discourse analysis is definitely a great way to process interviews – provided you are looking for the (often subconscious) communication choices your interviewees make to get their point across, and if you want to know what kind background knowledge and assumptions informs their views. It’s often quite revealing to see how interviewees tie their arguments together with wider social discourses and the argumentation patterns you’d find there (e.g. the news, academia, work conversations, etc.). What I normally do is create a protocol of the interviews (using either my own paraphrasing or rough transcripts), and after coding the meaningful segments I look at specific parts in detail. This can then also include transcribing those parts in a way that marks hesitations, intonations, and other such qualities of the spoken word (Paul Chilton has provided some useful annotation advice for this). As you might imagine, this can be a lot of work. So if you are mainly on a “fact finding” mission and are trying to figure out how the topic “works” that your interviewees discuss, then I probably wouldn’t recommend a full discourse analysis based on transcripts: simple protocols might be the better way forward. I hope this helps you decide how to approach those materials – good luck with the MA! Best – Florian

Thanks for the replay and advice, this sounds really good. I think I’m going to use some other material as well such as a short film. So mix the discourse analysis with the visual analysis that you have also clearly presented. Could I call this a multimodal discourse analysis? I think the wider context filters through in the interviews and the short films quite well, I also think this is physically impacting on society and possibly playing into Foucault’s ideas about Govenrmentality. Would you recommend analysing some of the physical impacts as well?

In relation to Paul Chilton is there a link to an example of how to transcribe in a way that marks hesitations, intonations, and other such qualities of the spoken word?

Many thanks in advance Josh.

I am always in favor of including other types of media, and seeing how a discourse works in different “modes”, so this sounds promising. I would be careful to call something a “multimodal” analysis, though: I think the word fits best when you systematically look at how the medium contributes to the discourse. So if you are analysing camera angles, mise-en-scene, editing, etc. in combination with what is said in the film, then the term applies. If you are mainly commenting on the content of the film in relation to your interviews, then I might try to find another word (or point out in a footnote that you are not conducting a full-fledged “multimodal” analysis, and then suggest further reading on that kind of research approach).

As for “physical” impacts, I find it fascinating to see how discourses crystallize into institutions and then inform such things as buildings, urban planning, use of physical violence, etc. Is that what you have in mind with “physical” impact? That would be the sort of question Foucault indeed looked at. My advice here would be to include such issues if you have good data, and to otherwise note such impacts in the intro/conclusion of your thesis. A risk here is that you might end up doing too many things at once, so be careful that you still narrow down your main analysis enough. This, of course, depends entirely on the kind of thesis you are writing.

As for the transcription advice, I couldn’t find Chilton’s notations online, but I have reproduced some of them in the figure in this blogpost: http://www.politicseastasia.com/studying/discourse-analysis-and-foreign-languages/ . As you’ll see, the full list of notations is on page 206 of his book “Analyzing Political Discourse”.

Let me know how your analysis proceeds!

Best – Florian

Hi Danil! Hope you must be fine. Well could you please share some of the work that you have researched with reference to television discourse and also the research proposals and Research Articles/papers that you have in his domain. Because your area of research and my area of research are similar so we may help and support each other. Thanks in Advance

Hi Florian, Firstly, this post on discourse analysis is incredibly helpful so cheers for that! I’m embarking on my MA dissertation and am doing a critical discourse analysis. I’ve focused on one online newspaper and its coverage of immigration, but am feeling overwhelmed by the amount of data generated. I was wondering if you could recommend how many articles to study, as CDA is so intense, would 2 or 3 be ok? Thanks Michele

Hi Michele, I agree that a full discourse analysis of a large number of texts is almost impossible for anything smaller than a research MA or PhD thesis. There are three ways you can still make a contribution in an MA thesis, but without overwhelming yourself. The first is to consciously phase out certain analytic aspects, for instance by choosing to not explore all linguistic features of the texts in detail. In that case, you’ll have to find a good justification for your choices, and should probably point out at the end what follow-up research would now be necessary as a next step. The second option is to chose materials that are particularly representative. If you have evidence that a particular newspaper article kicked off a huge debate, or that a specific policy document is of paramount importance (e.g. a state-of-the-union address, etc.), then you may not need more materials – you should, however, then point out what limitations this particular “window” into the discourse has. Thirdly, you could take a classic hermeneutical approach by starting with one text, qualitatively mapping out the discourse and its features there, and then moving on to a second text, a third text, and so on, until you are no longer finding any major new discursive features. I believe Jäger recommends such an approach. If you narrow your topic down well enough at the outset, you may indeed be in a position to justify using only a handful of texts rather than a large corpus.

Thanks Florian, this is really helpful. I’ve decided to do a general analysis of headlines from one month of the newspaper I’m using, focusing on elements of structural feminism and critical discourse analysis, and then shall do a more detailed breakdown of 3 of the most relevant articles. Do you think that would be okay, as long as my limitations are explicit? Thanks Michele

This sounds very cool – I personally like approaches that take a bird’s-eye view first (through headlines in newspapers, structure of TV series seasons, etc.) and then pick a representative sample for detailed analysis, based on that initial work. This could work nicely. Let me know how it shapes up! Best – F

It’s a good article to teach people how to conduct one discourse analysis. I learn much from it when I designed my research. I just have one question, is it suit for analysing the official documents like rules, laws, regulations etc.? I think it is good for assessing news, but I’m not sure if it can be applied to some official papers.

Discourse analysis can definitely be used on policy documents. It is indeed easier to analyse news articles, since they are often rather explicit about their “discursive position”, but legal texts also appeal to certain categories, draw from assumptions, and establish self-evident truths. The important thing to keep in mind is that a legal document is a specific genre, and that different genre conventions consequently apply. I know Fairclough has looked at official documents, and you’re likely to also find such studies in the established journals as well (e.g. Discourse & Society), so I’d recommend taking a look at such examples for inspiration.

Hi, Florian, Thank you for your suggestion. I have read Media Discourse written by Fairclough. His ‘three-dimensional method of discourse analysis’ is more suitable for my dissertation. I find it’s difficult to apply the theory without any comparison. In addition, due to the translation, I find it’s hard to conduct it to Chinese documents. Could you mind to tell me how you deal with this situation? Thanks a lot!

Translation into different contexts is of course an issue, particularly with the more theoretical aspects of discourse analysis (Fairclough is a good example here). You could check what Chinese authors are writing on the subject. Shi Xu from Hangzhou’s Zhejiang Daxue is a pretty big name in that regard, and he’s been criticizing discourse analysis for being a “Western” method that needs to be revised for use in China. I don’t particularly agree (see my discussion here: http://www.politicseastasia.com/research/fourth-international-conference-on-multicultural-discourse/ ), but as you can see a straight-forward application of Fairclough to a foreign context deserves critical reflection. Maybe Shi’s work, or that of his students, can provide the comparison you are looking for? In addition, I’ve written a bit about how to do a discourse analysis in practice when using foreign scripts, but I’m not sure this answers your question: http://www.politicseastasia.com/studying/discourse-analysis-and-foreign-languages/ .

Sorry for replying late. Thank you so much for providing so many useful resources for my research. I selected English texts as my resources to apply CDA (because I don’t need to translate it).

Many thanks for your suggestions.

Hi Florian, this is a great article, and is one of the first I read that really explains the process clearly. I’m looking for some advice, however, as I’m writing about improving the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and I’ve decided to conduct a discourse analysis on the Treaty, the IAEA statute and political speechs made by America as well as non-Western orgs such as the NAM or the Arab League on the subject, to compare discourse between the two sides and how to bridge the gap. Is this too ambitious? How many documents do you recommend for a decent analysis, and of such variety in genre? Thanks

Dear Louise, This does indeed sound quite ambitious – I assume you are writing an MA thesis? You may want to take a look at my comment above, on Michelle’s project. She had similar concerns about narrowing down her material, and I suggested three different options to her on how to handle that challenge. In your case, you may have to make a choice: you could use one of the two sets of texts (official IAEA documents vs. speeches) as background and the other to do a detailed analysis. For instance, I think doing a discourse analysis on the actual Treaty and the IAEA statutes makes good sense, and should be doable at the MA level. On the other hand, if you want to cover speeches, I would probably recommend taking a quantitative approach first, for instance using WordSmith ( http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/ ) or some similar tool. You could then “zoom in” on specific features of the discourse and discuss those in more detail. Otherwise you might end up with a lot of speeches, particularly on a topic such as this one, that you may not be able to assess in detail at a qualitative level. Unless of course you are doing a PhD, in which case this sounds like the kind of work that would make a good doctoral thesis. I hope this helps! Best Florian

Thanks Florian, I’m looking into WordSmith now. After reading your response for Michele as suggested, would you recommend Fairclough over, say, Foucauldian Discourse Analysis, for such a project? What would you say are the benefits of CDA?

Hi Louise. I’m afraid it’s not all that easy to draw a clear line between different approaches to discourse, such as Foucauldian analysis, CDA (e.g. Fairclough), political discourse analysis (e.g. Chilton), or discourse-historical analysis (e.g. Wodak). They often overlap and draw from each other, and many of the distinctions are subtle theoretical differences (for instance how “constructivist” the respective author is) rather than completely different methodological approaches. For a good introduction of how Fairclough aligns himself with Foucault’s aims, I can recommend this short text: http://bit.ly/1t3Nii7 . To answer your question, I think you could make a distinction at the methodological level between studying 1) primarily and in great detail the linguistic features of a discourse, 2) the socio-historical context of the discourse (and its development over time), and 3) the strategic communication choices and social practices of different actors at a particular point in time (e.g. framing, self-other representations, etc). Most discourse analysts will look at all three, and if you want to read a good article that covers all of these angles for the Scottish case, I can recommend this piece by my colleague Johnny Unger for inspiration: http://bit.ly/1ksxj9v . For an MA thesis I think it would be fair to emphasise one of these levels of analysis, as long as you also acknowledge the others. You could, for instance, provide the socio-historical context in your introduction and could then explore how different actors frame the issue, building in examples from the language as you go along. Your limitations/future research section in the conclusion could then point out how more detailed linguistic analysis and historical tracing of the discourse can shed light on additional questions you have raised in your thesis. Just a thought.

Hi Florian. Thank you very much for putting this website up. I am currently writing a proposal for a PhD dissertation on energy policy formulation and have been wondering about a specific kind of discourse analysis — argumentative discourse analysis (M. Hajer). There seems to be a dearth of resources about it, especially as a method. I surmise that it emphasizes certain dimensions of discourse compared to the “conventional” discourse analysis which generally explores/examines text (linguistic), the rhetorical component, as well as context (socio/historical). I was wondering if you were kind enough to offer suggestions or tips (perhaps even some general “red flags”). Many thanks and more power to you.

Hi Jalton, Sorry for keeping you waiting – you caught me during the Easter break. Thanks for pointing out Hajer’s work, which I think has a lot in common with the issues I’ve discussed here. At the risk of doing his work injustice, it seems his argumentative discourse analysis (ADA) is very much interested in the structure of texts and conversations and in the rhetorical and argumentative strategies that people deploy. For instance, he’d be interested in classic argumentative fallacies such as appeals to authority or begging the question, which I agree are very useful when examining arguments. I particularly like the fact that he places a strong emphasis on how people perform their role in social interactions, which is something my colleagues and I are also interested in. In that sense, I don’t think ADA stands in opposition to other forms of discourse analysis – it simply draws attention to specific aspects of communication and would probably fit very nicely into the “toolbox” I’ve put together above. There are of course also differences, for instance in the way Hajer writes about “discourse coalitions” when talking about groups that share similar discursive positions – a context in which I would probably use a network approach – but these distinctions are rather subtle. I would have to talk to him and his colleagues to see where we potentially disagree. My guess would be that I place a tad more emphasis on agency whereas he might be a bit more interested in structures. At any rate, something I find highly valuable is his definition of “dominant” discourse, which you’ll find here: http://www.maartenhajer.nl/?page_id=14 (under “influence of discourse”). Not sure whether I’ve helped or muddied the waters further… let me know what your PhD research uncovers, and what sort of approach you ended up adopting. The project sounds fascinating. Best – F

Thank you for taking the time to respond. It is very much appreciated. I have taken the time to go through all the “nooks and crannies” of this website and what a rich source of ideas and methods it truly is! I hope that one day, I get to attend one of the conferences and workshops which your organization is organizing (since my other research interest also touches generally on the socio-political dynamics of the digital media, representation vis-a-vis Filipinos/Philippine culture and nationalism). Keep in touch :)

Thanks Jalton, I appreciate the feedback. Hope you’ll get to join us at one of our future events – sounds like your work would fit right in. Let’s do indeed stay in touch!

Dear Florian,

Thank you for the helpful breakdown of such a complex task! I’m also working on a PhD, dealing specifically with larger discourse concepts of nationalism, economic development and globalization in east Asian developmental states (SK, Taiwan, etc.).

I rely heavily on Jessop’s Cultural Political Economy (CPE) approach as well as Fairclough’s CDA, and I would like to investigate the shifting of discourse with concepts such as re-contextualization (such as competitiveness of economies to the concept of national identity, etc.) The problem I have is coding the samples. I have narrowed down my codes but the relation between larger concepts such as discourse of globalization/nationalism and smaller ones [branding as advancing in international division of labor] seem somewhat arbitrary. I know this totally depends on the research question, but how I can I work coherently without becoming muddled with the infinitely interconnection relations between these concepts?

I appreciate your reading this!

Sorry for the late reply, but only just got back from a trip. Getting the amount of work you put in right is indeed a big challenge. I think there’s three things you could do, but I’m not sure how much each option applies to your case. Nevertheless, maybe you’ll find some of these ideas useful: The first is to use “evolutionary” coding to come up with a long and comprehensive list of categories, which you then apply to your materials, but that you don’t necessarily all examine in the thesis. The work might be more arduous now, but if you plan to use the materials after the PhD as well, for follow-up work, then this might be a good option for you. It sounds to me like this is the direction you are already headed in. In the thesis, you can then look at specific discourse strands only, but note that they of course intersect with other issues as well (and point to the appendix for the comprehensive list). Making choices as to what is most important is part of a PhD project, so I doubt anyone would fault you for not covering every conceivable discursive connection. The second option would be to come up with a two-step coding process: the first part would work at the macro-level, and would use units of your materials that are fairly large (so: full texts, full pages, or at the very least full paragraphs). You can create a table and then list all the relevant units, followed by all the various codes you have decided to use for that section, and maybe also deploy quantitative tools to then help you get a grasp of that material. The second step would then be to select segments from that first “bird’s-eye-view” step that are particularly important to your project, and to go in and do the detailed coding and qualitative analysis there. The third option would be to state at the start that you are only interested in two or three main concepts, and to radically narrow down your set of categories. Whether or not this is feasible (and to what extent it is advisable) is something I can’t comment on, but a decision you would have to make together with your supervisor, based on your materials.

Sorry for not having better advice – this is a very difficult question. Let me know how you decided, and how the project worked out!

This brilliant! While many say there is no set of methods in DA, this gives us a great starting point to assess and use on our specific studies. Thanks a million, you have summed up hours of reading!!

Dear Florian, I found these information very very important.I’m doing a phd on disasrer communication. I’m looking at how communication channels,specially social media have been used to build community resilience to natural disasters. I wish to do a discourse analysis on interview data, with disaster managers and communication managers. This is a comparative study about Sri Lanka and New Zealand. I think this data analysis method fits with my objective, I need to see how the meaning of being resilient is build through the communication channels in these two countries. I appreciate your thought.

Dear Gayadini, sounds like a great project. I particularly like that you’ll be checking up on “resilience” discourses. I would keep my eyes open for concepts that your interviewees link to that idea, and for the argumentative strategies they use to make sense of disasters and (personal) responsibilities. To me, the whole “resilience” story is decidedly neo-liberal, since it transfers the burden of being prepared for risks and reacting to crises to local communities, households, or individuals. Would be fascinating to see whether this impression holds in the two cases, and what the nuanced variations might be.

Coincidentally, my colleague and I have just published an article on PRC disaster discourses in the Journal of Contemporary China (2014, vol.23/88). The study is not a linguistic discourse analysis, and does not examine resilience, but it looks at visual discourses in official and popular culture, which might nevertheless be interesting for you: http://bit.ly/1mO2gsi . All the best – F

Dear Florian, Thank you so much for your helpful article, if before I had only confusion in my head now is everything clear!Now I have a start point. I am dealing with my MA thesis on discourse analysis, more specifically discrimination in discourse about Romanian people in an Italian newspaper I’ve chosen. Till now I have 9 articles, I guess is too much; last Thursday I had a presentation with my two supervisors and they told me I’ve done too much linguistic analysis, and I shall focus more on microparts that I consider extremely important and proceed with the discouse analysis supported of course by the linguistical analysis. The problem is that there is no direct discrimination against Romanians expressed in the articles I’ve chosen and they told me I shall focus on the suggestions and inferences that come from the report, the ones I understand the journalist is reporting, or is in some way influenced by others/society/rules of the newspaper, somehow what shall I do is to read between the lines. Do you think I can apply your whole explanation from above to my case? I have difficulties dealing with this. They told me that even if I don’t prove at the end the Romanians are discriminated in that newspaper (it may be possible to prove or it may be not) it is sufficient for the requirements of the MA to know how to handle with discourse analysis. Do you have any suggestion to tell me how to deal with this? Do you think 3 or 4 articles would be enough for 100-120 pages?

Thank you and greetings from Denmark!

Dear Daniela,

I am not particularly familiar with the MA regulations in Denmark, but I would say that following a supervisor’s advice is always a good call. For an MA thesis, I can completely understand that they want you to contextualize your sources in wider social practices, and that providing a few key examples at the linguistic level is sufficient. Personally, I am satisfied when students demonstrate that they can pose a clever question, select materials that promise to address that question, and then try to use an academic method on those materials. If the results don’t cover the whole issue in all its complexity, that is usually quite alright, particularly if the thesis recognizes these shortcomings and can give suggestions for further study. You are, after all, not writing a PhD thesis…

Take a look at my discussion above with Louise and with Mihn – they had similar concerns about the scope that a discourse analysis at that level can realistically cover.

What I would probably do in your case is take all nine articles and go through them rather coarsely, noting the main themes that characterize that particular debate. I would then go back to particularly representative or simply very noteworthy examples to show how these features manifest themselves in the language and the argumentative strategies, but I would state clearly that your goal is not to conduct a full linguistic discourse analysis (…something that future research could explore in more detail). I would then focus on the image of Romanians that gets constructed in the articles, and the social/production context within which the articles make their case. If you end up finding that there is no stereotyping in your materials, that is in itself also a finding.

Hope this helps! Good luck with the thesis. Regards – F

Dear Florian! Sorry to disturb you again but its really important to share it with you. Please also guide me I want to present my Research paper on discourse analysis. S if you could find some platform like national or international conferences i would love to present there.

Thanks you very much in advance

Dear Florian, Thank you so much for your detailed answer! I will definitely follow your suggestion! I really appreciate the help you offer within this blog! Best regards, Daniela

I have to say your article is very enlightening. I am required to do genre and register analysis (Tenor, Field, Mode) as part of my MA (Linguistics and Translation). We call this source text (ST) analysis and we are required to carry it out before translating the ST. To be honest with you, I am only doing this analysis as it is an essential part of the end of the year project as translation theories and register analysis are completely useless when it comes to the actual act of translating. This is why I fail to see the point behind engaging in such an activity. However, after reading your article and watching the introduction, I am beginning to understand the idea behind DA. How does register analysis fit in DA? Is it possible to analyse register without doing the whole shebang (DA)?

You said in your article that ‘Passive phrases and impersonal chains of nouns are a common way to obscure relationships behind the text and shirk responsibility’. How is one supposed to know these analytical clichés? My analysis might lead me to find many passive phrases but I would never be able to make the connection you made. Why is it so difficult to find actual lengthy examples of discourse analysis?

Many thanks in advance Florian. Alex

Dear Alex, I think it makes good sense to consider register when analysing discourse, particularly where speakers (or writers) shift the level of formality they use in order to cater to different audiences. But it would very much depend on the case and the research question. If you are looking only for this particular element in a discourse, I could completely understand if you excluded many (or even all) of the steps I’ve outlined above. You would basically be looking specifically for contractions, elliptical phrases, etc. to draw your conclusions. As always with discourse analysis, I would only use the tools that help you do that, and would exclude the others. As for the conclusions that are worth drawing from language use, this is very much a matter of context. For instance, not every passive phrase obscures who the actors are in a sentence, but it isn’t far fetched to conclude that a text that painstakingly omits any reference to agents creates a certain impression of how the issue at hand works. I would always check what a particular linguistic choice achieves in a particular setting. As for good examples of discourse analysis, my personal favorite is the German book I reference above (by Siegfried Jäger), but there are plenty of good examples in English as well. Fairclough’s collection of essays is a classic, and it does include a few practical chapters. You could also check the journals Discourse & Society and Discourse & Communication – as with all academic journals, you’ll get a mixed batch of articles, but some of those analyses might serve as inspiration. The editor Teun van Dijk also has a website that includes additional resources: http://www.discourses.org/ . Hope this helps! All the best Florian

Its an amazing article in breaking down the complex process of DA into tangible doable steps. I came across it while trying to figure out how to do a CDA of news interviews televised during prime time on news channels, im recording from public and private channels in the Pakistani context. I had set out thinking initially when I developed my PhD proposal, that I would do an analysis of how the presenter/ anchor of the political talk show (I term it a talk show due to the infortainment aspect of these televised political interviews) frames the topic in the initial opening and check the closings to see if he maintained his original idea about the topic or the course of the debate or discussion. later one of the experts from the field suggested I need to see what patterns of control are exhibited in the intervening part as well.

Now that I’m recording the actual shows I’m confused and want to fine tune my focus, but there is just too much going on that i want to look into and at the proposal stage i made such wide ranging questions that I’m at sea with my analysis. where to begin? how to begin? Your suggestions seem so interesting. I was wondering what kind of suggestions you would give somebody who had thought at the proposal level that they had everything down and figures and now find that all aspects need to be re-thought.

Thanks for your article once again and thanks for any suggestions you might give to me.

Warm Regards Saira

Dear Saira, I think it is quite normal that a project changes between the early proposal stage and the actual analysis. In fact, that is a good sign: it shows that your analysis of the materials is defying many of the assumptions you and others previously had, and that this now necessitates difficult re-thinking of the topic. Personally, I would always try to start by structuring my materials at a “macro” level, for instance by looking at the different elements that a talk show uses. I would then try to figure out what features are particularly prominent in each element, and I would then build my methodology based on that. So, for instance, if recurring elements of the show are videos that introduce the guests, then I would think about doing shot-by-shot analyses of various such videos. If there are talk rounds in which a host moderates a discussion, I would take a look at how the host frames that discussion, and how he or she intervenes to guide the discourse in certain directions. These are just examples, of course, but maybe they already help a little bit. Again, I don’t think that re-working your research approach in light of the materials is a weakness – if you are open about that process (and, ideally, write a research protocol to keep track of how your choices evolved throughout the project), then it can very much be a strength. It shows that you are doing your job. All the best Florian

Hi Saira! Hope you must be fine. Well could you please share some of the work that you have researched with reference to television discourse and also the research proposals and Research Articles/papers that you have in his domain. Because your area of research and my area of research are similar so we may help and support each other. Thanks in Advance

I needed to thank you for this good read!! I definitely loved every bit of it. I have you saved as a favorite to look at new things you post…

loads of thanks :)

I have been reading the various links on Discourse Analysis that you have put together in your website, and they are awesomely helpful! I am in research of help and guidance because I intend to pursue a PhD on Linguistics, and I plan to focus on sociolinguistics, pariculary DA.

Right now in my country, the Philippines, there is much excitement, drama, action going on in our politics, with some of our Senators, who previously were showbiz actors, are being jailed and surrendering themselves due to plunder, and all sorts of corruption. I don’t know but I am appalled by all these political happenings in my country for the last few months and the recent years. ( I have been away since May 2012.)

I plan to use the online posts articles of the ABS-CBN, a major TV network, and the online version of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a top national broadsheet, as a source for my discursive statements, and the “surrender” of Senator Bong Revilla last week as the discursive event. All these lead to the Napoles scam, which I think is an octopus of controversy besetting my beloved country.

In relation to work, another idea I have in mind is DA as applied to Tourism… Macau, as they say, is the Las Vegas of Asia, and there many interesting things going on here too in terms of tourism. That is the area I might be really see relevance, because in terms of Macau politics, I am not well-versed as I have just settled here during the Chinese New Year. I have an interest on this topic because I teach in a tertiary school offering solely tourism courses.

I would need your opinion about this and your advice on how to go about my Preliminary Proposal, as this is the requirement for admission to a graduate school I have chosen in Hong Kong (I teach here in Macau).

Do you think one of these will be interesting topic for a PhD study?

I hope this is not too much to ask, but your thoughts on my query are highly appreciated.

Thank you and keep up the good job you are doing! These are immensely valuable!

Best regards, Chloe

Dear Chloe,

Both of these topics sound doable, and I’m sure each would make for a good PhD thesis. I could imagine that the Philippine politics topic would be more timely, and you clearly already have thought about the methodology and your sources. It looks to me like this is a project you can easily write up in about 2000 words. The main challenge will be to stay as unbiased as possible. One of the reasons I don’t research German politics, for instance, is that I am not confident I would be able to keep my personal views out of my analysis. On the other hand, who would be more qualified to take apart the recent developments in the Philippines than someone who knows the country intimately but is now studying it from a distance? This could work very well. (…one other thought: have you considered looking into social media discourses on the subject? would be interesting to see how the discourse plays out beyond the official broadsheets and TV channels). As for the Macau topic, if you decided to go this way, you could interview officials from the tourism board as well as professionals in the industry to see how they market Macau as a brand. Those interviews, together with promotional materials (videos, web content, etc.), would make for a great set of sources that you could conduct a discourse analysis on. Hope this makes sense. Good luck with the project!

This is very nice. But is there any way I can ask for an example of this steps? :) Thank you.

You’re right, it would be nice to provide more examples. Sadly, I don’t have anything concise available at the moment. I’ll keep my eyes open. For now, my advice would be to look at some of the leading journals in the field and see what inspiration you might get from their articles. Discourse & Society and Discourse & Communication are two of the most famous outlets.

This is a great article. I don’t study linguistics myself but this was still helpful in getting an understanding of DA.

My wife is currently struggling with coming up with a topic for her term paper using Critical Discourse Analysis, she wanted to do an analysis on the strife in Palestine but doesn’t know where to start. I will have her read over this article and hopefully it will be helpful for her. My main issue is that I would like to be able to offer her some assistance so I’m doing research on how CDA works.

If at all possible, could you explain how one should go about analyzing online news articles which cover the war; and possibly where the best sources could be for this material.

Also any examples of work done by you or others on similar topics would be greatly appreciated.

I look forward to your response as soon as possible as her paper is due on the 29th of july, its only 12 pages so a couple days of works is all that’s necessary for the write up but the information gathering is where the real problem lies.

Thanks again

Thanks for your questions! I just saw your wife’s deadline is tomorrow – sorry for the late reply, but I’m abroad on research at the moment and don’t always see the notifications on time. I don’t have any good advice on where to find news articles on Palestine, since I myself am not working on issues in the Middle East, but I would always recommend also looking at the medium itself alongside the actual (often written) discourse. There’s an interesting paper on how to analyse websites that I would normally have recommended (I was thinking of John Knox’s 2009 paper “Punctuating the Home Page: Image as Language in an Online Newspaper”, which appeared in Discourse & Communication 3/2, 145-172), but it’s probably a bit late for that. I hope the paper goes well!

I am struggling with my Master thesis on the discrimination of Romanians in an Italian newspaper. I’ve found a very interesting article, but is mainly an interview, and the interesting discourses to analyze are expressed not by the journalist who asks the questions, but by the head of the police, in direct reported speech. How can I carry out the analysis on an interview if the journalist is not so present? thank a lot!

hello Florian, your article was so enriching. I am presently working on my MA dissertation and the topic is A discourse analysis of language use on social media. I actually want to concentrate on facebook, could you tell me on how exactly to go about it. Thanks as i anticipate your favourable response

Hi Esther, Studying Facebook is a difficult subject, since the functioning of social media brings with it all sorts of analytic and ethical questions. For instance, you’ll have to justify which FB pages you’ll be analysing and why. If you use the posts of people you have “friended”, then this raises ethical questions about their consent. If you use FB feeds from official institutions or enterprises, you can side-step that problem, but you’ll still have to justify your choices, of course. Then there’s the question whether you are focusing first and foremost on language use or whether you are willing to take into account the specifics of the medium. For instance, does your analysis look at “likes” and “shares”? Does it take into account what appears on someone’s wall and why? These may seem like trivial issues, but things gets complicated (and often quite technical) very quickly when you ask how the technical features of FB or the various social linkages of users or FB’s largely invisible algorithms end up shaping discussions. I don’t have good answers for how to deal with these issues, but you might want to take a closer look at the research that scholars are currently doing on FB and other social media. Good sources for this are the academic journals New Media & Society as well as Information, Communication & Society. I hope this helps! Good luck with the project.

Thanks for such a practical and helpful guide. But sir, are these linguistic and rhetoric mechanisms all that one needs in doing a Critical Discourse Analysis of texts also (say a religious or political text)? If no, please what are the linguistic and IDEOLOGICAL devices one needs to do a CDA analysis of political interviews in particular, especially using Fairclough’s approach?

Dear Amuuts, thanks for the kind words. As for your question, I wonder whether I understand you correctly: you are asking how to move beyond the linguistic and rhetorical features of texts and explore how they tie in with broader worldviews, right? The reason I ask is because the term “ideology” gets interpreted in vastly different ways. Fairclough is fairly Marxist about his use of the term (so he sees ideology as false knowledge), but other scholars at times use ideology either as a synonym with discourse or to signify a systematic framework of thought, carried by discourse (I would subscribe to that last definition). Either way, exploring the ideologies that communication practices relay is a core part of discourse analysis. So to explore the ideologies that get promoted through a text like a speech, you could isolate all statements on a specific subject, check whether they are part of a system of interlocking assumptions or beliefs, and then see whose interests these assumptions serve. It would also make sense to compare such statements to those in other sources, to see whether a speech perpetuates a particular ideological view (e.g. neo-liberalism or socialism). More generally, I would first recommend taking a look at the scholarship on ideology and to define what you mean by the term (and how you think ideology connects with discourse). Good sources for this are Terry Eagleton’s book ‘Ideology: An Introduction’ and Raymond Geuss’ ‘The Idea of a Critical Theory’, just FYI.

Thanks for your prompt response sir. But to be more specific, my research has to do with “Ideological Projection in media interviews with selected political party leaders” and I intend using Fairclough’s cda approach as my theoretical framework. My confusion now is that I’m not clear with Fairclough’s analytical tools (the ideological devices in the interviews) like the way van Dijk has listed his in several materials I have consulted. could you please help to itemise Fairclough’s analytical tools or would you advice I change my intended framework?

Dear Amuuts, I’m afraid I can’t help you itemize Fairclough’s analytical tools. You would have to get in touch with him. The reason I drew up the steps for this article was that I felt many CDA frameworks were not very explicit on what practical work steps they would recommend to study a text. This, to some extent, also goes for Fairclough, if you ask me. If going over Fairclough’s work does not answer your questions, then it might indeed be better drawing from someone else’s writings, or coming up with your own tools.

Hi Ammuts! Hope you must be fine. Well could you please share some of the work that you have researched with reference to television discourse and also the research proposals and Research Articles/papers that you have in this domain. Because your area of research and my area of research are similar so we may help and support each other. Thanks in Advance

It is really concise and useful. Thanks a lot!

dear,i find ur work fairly impressive and helpful.my research topic is ‘influence of cartoons on children’a critical discourse analysis from fairclough’s perspective.the main areas of investigation will be power relations,culture,violence,sexuality and other themes other than gender roles..kindly help me with useful tips

Hi, what’s the difference between this and a Critical Discourse Analysis?

Thanks, it’s been really useful, and thankyou for the advice for using Tagxedo,

Thank you for taking the time to do this and for sharing it publicly. As a distance MA student with no prior knowledge about CDA or guidance on my degree program, this is like discovering gold. It gives me a sense of direction that Fairclough’s texts do not offer, but can certainly be adapted to work around.

Great effort, really informative. I have been reading about DA for monthes. Books, papers, attending courses…etc. I understand the concept and the theoretical debates, but couldn’t find any sufficient guid to explictly declare a step by step approach! Thank you very much.

Thanks Florian. You are an angel. God bless!

[…] can move on to analyse your data in earnest. If you need tips on how to do this, take a look at the ten work steps I […]

Hi Florian, I am linguist used to analyze Classical Chinese Texts in terms of syntax and phonology, but I am now co-teaching a course on Critical Discourse Analysis at the Polytechnic University of Hong Kong and I would like to lead my students in conducting analyses of the media discourse about Occupy Central and related issues (opinions about police violence, disruption of public order etc). Op-eds in the South China Morning Posts are an easy start, but I would be interested to cover cantonese newspapers. My students told me that, for example, now most of the pro-occupy central talk in mainstream chinese-language newspapers (except for the pro-occupy Apple Daily) takes place in the sport sections. Would you have any practical suggestions, beyond the ones you gave in the main section, about features that might be different in analyzing Chinese rather than English texts? Many thanks for your very effective summary and best regards Marco

Great subject. Have you had a chance to look at this post on discourse analysis and foreign languages ( http://www.politicseastasia.com/studying/discourse-analysis-and-foreign-languages/ )? Aside from the more generic things I have tried to collect there, on this topic I would look at the structure of the text and the way papers employ vague phrases to remain ambiguous (the gritty opinions are usually packaged between intros and conclusions full of standardized phrases, and they are rarely concrete – lots of metaphors and analogies, in my experience). You could also let students look at word-groups and their connotations – particularly the nouns, considering how common noun-phrases are in Chinese. Just a few thoughts. Hope this helps – have fun with this topic! Very exciting.

Dear Florian, many thanks for the suggestions! Yes, I had a look at the post on discourse analysis and foreign languages, I just needed something more specific to get started. If enough students will be motivated to pursue this topic, we might present something at the Hong Kong Linguistics Forum this December, and have more questions in the process- I’ll keep you updated. Best Marco

Thanks for this! A great how-to guide for students! Well done!

Cheers, Todd

Thanks Todd, that’s very kind. :)

thanks for ur teachings,what if am doing a reseach on newspaper’s language?

Hi Andrew. Most of what I’ve included here can also be used on newspaper texts. If you want to read a book specifically about newspaper analysis, though, I’d check Richardson’s work: http://www.amazon.com/Analysing-Newspapers-Approach-Critical-Discourse/dp/1403935653 . Hope this helps!

Hi, can anyone help me or advise me how to answer this question please? is compute based analysis of texts and discourse a help or a hindrance? I very appreciate your time and effort. Thanks

I don’t think any methods is ever really a “hindrance”, but whether something is useful or not depends on what questions you want to answer. For qualitative issues, like the rhetorical strategies in a particular speech or publication, you probably won’t need computational approaches. But when you are examining large amounts of texts, and when you want to see how words or word categories play out quantitatively, computational methods can be a big help. I would always suggest considering a mix of methods that fits your project, for instance using computational corpus analysis to get a bird’s-eye view of your sources and then deploying qualitative methods to explore detailed examples.

can somebody tell me how can discourse analysis and sociolinguistics work together towards language power?

Hi Florian It is a great work by you, i regret i found it only now. i am working on CDA and violence against women. your post is very useful Thank you

Glad to hear it, thanks Radha.

Thnx for a very enlightening explanation. I’m thinking of analysing newspapers headlines in relation to a specific event to examine the ideology of the newspapers. I understood that CDA is in a way a must for that topic. Now I have 3 theories that I can’t make up my mind which is better: Fairclough, van Dijk and richardson. Can u advise me which one would be the best? I appreciate ur help.

Hi Dalia, thanks for the question. Do you think the three theories would have to be mutually exclusive? If you had to pick one author, I’d probably say focus on Richardson, considering your focus on newspapers. That said, Fairclough’s Marxist take, van Dijk’s strong empirical work, and Richardson’s concern about news media could potentially be connected. I would definitely mention all three in your write-up of the project, to be honest.

this will be so helpful with my course work and dissertation topic. I would need some advice on how to code my dissertation, I want to analyse UK and US newspaper to find out if their reports on Ebola in Africa were factual or was geared towards scaremongering. I would be grateful if you could contact me my email so I share with you the details and get your opinion on my work. Thank you

Beste heer,

Hartelijk bedankt voor uw artikel, ik had nooit beter kunnen vinden wat discoursanalyse betreft! U redt a.h.w een studente in nood.

Laat ik me even voorstellen: ik ben studente aan de Vrije Universiteit Brussel, departement Toegepaste Taalkunde. Dit academiejaar schrijf ik mijn bachelorproef over de openbare toespraken van Benito Mussolini. Ik beperk me tot vier toespraken, omdat ik daarvan ook en vertaling maak. Het is dan uiteraard de bedoeling dat ik hiervan ook en grondige analyse maak, die ik zonder dit artikel waarschijnlijk nooit tot een goed einde zou kunnen brengen.

Vriendelijke groeten, Tatiana

Dear Tatiana, Briefly in English: thanks for your comment. I’m very glad that these materials helped you. I’ll keep my fingers crossed that the BA thesis works out well! Sounds like a great topic. All the best Florian

Hi Dear Folrian, I would wonder if the feasibility-non-feasibility discourses of Eclectic CDA theories (frameworks/models)-blended from Fairclough, Chilton, Wodak, van Dijk, van Leeuwen, Foucault, etc. are applicable. I mean, is it applicable to use blended CDA in analysing hegemonic contestations and balance-equipoise for history texts? Alelign A.

Hi Alelign, If I understand you correctly, you are wondering whether it’s alright to mix different approaches to discourse analysis in order to figure out how domination and resistance work in history texts, right? If that’s the case, then I don’t see why not. I’m very much in favor of being eclectic. After all, what matters is the questions you have. Which specific approaches to draw from to get your answers should then always follow from those questions. Also, there is a lot that the authors you mention have in common, which means you have a rich set of sources to draw from if you want to get a handle on your topic. Best – Florian

Could you explain form me more about MEDIUM ? please.

Hi Lamia, I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you asking how to figure out whether a discourse is affected by the type of medium it is communicated in? When I use the word medium above, what I mean is the “container” or “conduit” through which a message gets communicated. Your television is a medium, as is a newspaper. One important question to keep in mind is how the things that are being communicated might rely on the specifics of the medium. If I broadcast a message on TV, I can use very different communication strategies than if I write the same message down. I’ll be able to combine sound, images, and spoken words, for example. If I use the medium of the newspaper, I can use different scripts, different headers, and the layout of the page to add meaning to the written word. So an important work step is to ask: how does a specific text use the affordances of its medium to get a point across? That’s what I have in mind above when I mention McLuhan. If you are interested in such debates about how the medium matters to the message (or how the medium might even be more important than the message), you might want to check out McLuhan’s work. I can also recommend Noel Carroll’s book “The Philosophy of Mass Art” or Friedrich Kittler’s “Gramophone, Film, Typewriter” (the latter is not easy to ready, though). I hope this answers your question. Best Florian

Dear Florian, Thank you so much for this material. It is very helpful. My background is not much of language but I plan to use Discourse to analyse my research work which is about the rhetoric of ‘Transformation Agenda’ used by my country’s party in government. The party uses it as a political programme for developing the country. Just like Obama would say ‘Change’ for instance. Just trying to figure out how my research question will sound like.

Hey Desmond, This sounds like a good starting point. In fact, the idea of change could potentially become the basis for your coding strategy: you could try to isolate the various statements that the government makes regarding change, and you could then examine in detail how the speakers/writers conceptualize “transformation”. I suspect it might be interesting to then ask how such a concept relates to views of “modernity”, particularly to ideas of “progress”, but you’ll of course have to decide what makes sense, based on your sources. All the best of success with this exciting project! Florian

dear sir, firstly I thank you so much for this fine material for students like us. secondly, i want to inquire about CDA on web newa. i want to do MA thesis on BBC website news articles about the particular case of War on terror, Women rights and politics in Pakistan. how many topics should I choose among the three?how many articles should I work? and how should i apply CDA on the selected news articles and their headlines? regards!

Hi David, This is a pretty big question. I’m not sure I can answer all of it, and I would definitely recommend you talk to your supervisor about what he or she thinks is sufficient for your specific degree requirements. I think that analyzing BBC web news would make for a good study, provided you are able to justify why you are picking the BBC (as apposed to any other major news service). Your study will, effectively, be a study of BBC reporting – which is interesting, but which won’t allow you to generalize too much (e.g. what UK news is generally like, or even what all English-language news on these subjects are like). As long as this is clear, you could potentially have a strong case here. I would, however, limit an MA thesis to one topic. Three different issues seems like a lot, and such an approach would probably be more appropriate for a PhD. I would narrow down what you are looking at and pick only one theme. I would also decide on a time frame, so that you are not swamped with articles. If you had to look at all BBC news articles on the “War on Terror”, for example, I imagine you would only be able to get a grip of the sources using quantitative methods like corpus analysis. Depending on what you want to look at, less could very well be more. At any rate, examining the headlines is surely a good start, but I would also look at the structure of the various texts, as well as detailed statements that get made on specific (sub)topics. Also, it might be good to check what images accompany the texts. Just a thought. I hope these comments are useful, even if they are admittedly rather cursory. Do make sure to check with your supervisor to clarify what makes sense for your specific project. Best Florian

Dear Florian, It is very lucky to meet you and your website when I considering to start the discourse analysis assignment. I am a Chinese student who is currently studying in UK, to be honest, I have studied and reviewed all kinds of article concerning the CDA for several days, but until now, I am still have no idea what is discourse analysis and the purpose of the analysis. I was trying to follow the steps you summaried for beginer, but I just could not decided what should I write and what contents should be included in my article. I do not know whether it is because Chinese and western mindset are different. Moreover, often I found myself could not follow and understand what the author trying to say in the English artile (even 8.0 in reading in my IELTS test). I guess it is the main reason for spending several days in reading but no determination yet. My assignment requires 3500 words, I do not worry too much if I get started, but I just do not know how to start. I guess it would be much helpful if I could read some short examples of this kinds of article. Forgive me if my wrtting cofused you, i hope you could understand my meaning. Writting in English and English thinking is really a headache for me…….Help me. Thank you. Merry Xmas and Happy New Year!

Cheers, Long

Hi Long, I sympathize with how difficult it is to get a hang of discourse analysis. It’s already hard for native speakers, but having to do all this in a foreign language is a daunting task. I don’t have a lot of good advice, other than to check what analysts have done in your own language. I can recommend the colleagues at Zhejiang University. Shi Xu, for example, has been doing some great work there, and some of the analyses he and his colleagues have published are in Chinese. Take a look at his website: http://www.shixu.com/# . I hope you’ll find what you are looking for there. In addition, you could also look at some of the journals in the CNKI database. There should be quite a lot on 话语研究. Also, on the more general side, Oxford University Press’ “Foucault – A Very Short Introduction” has been translated into Chinese. Might be worth checking out, if only to get a grasp of the basic premises. I hope this helps! All the best Florian

Dear Florian, thank you very much for all the help. I will read more articles to further deepen my understanding on discourse analysis. At the moment, I am thinking to analyze a recent XI Jinping’s speech during a national event, by using the rhetoric theory and analyze the use of ethos(do not clear about yet), pathos (use of certain “we” “Chinese people” pronouns, and words that emboies the aspiration and sympathy) and logos (argumentaiton, claims and historical data) in that speech. Is it a discourse analysis? One of the marking criteria is we should have clear theory framework and methodology, can I say the Aristotle’s rhetoric theory is my framework? I was get the idea from another english article who analyzed Obama and G. Bush’s speech, and i believe it will be safe for me to follow their method to analyze my own data. I will not copy the words, but the idea and the way of their analysis. I am not sure whether this is a cheating/plagiarism. Your help would be highly appreciated if you could give me any comments on my this tentative thoughts. thank you. Cheers.

I am also international student in the UK and I also have a discourse analysis assignment. I am really struggling with writing this essay please if you have found any good articles or advice help me please

Hi Long, A bit of a late reply, but I hope it’s still useful: what you describe sounds very doable, though you should probably justify why you think Aristotle’s rhetoric theory applies to a cultural context that has a different tradition of political communication (it should be possible to make your case, for instance if you can argue that a particular model of rhetoric has become ubiquitous as an outcome of globalization, or if you want to make the case that what Aristotle described somehow tapped into the universality of certain human communication patterns). As for using someone else’s methods, that is perfectly alright, but you need to point this out and reference the work. Once you do that (and as long as you mark all original text as proper quotes) you are in no danger of plagiarizing. As for your other comment on translation, you should of course provide your readers with translated fragments of the speech, particularly of the parts that you use to make your case, but it is important to analyse the original phrasing. Once you translate, the text becomes your work, not that of Xi Jinping. Hope this helps. Best Florian

Hi Florian, almost finished my assignment on CDA, just come to say thank you! All the best! Long

By the way, it seems there is no official English translation for this speech yet. Is it OK if I translate by myself and then analyze the English version?

Hello Florian, Thank you very much for this fruitful articles. I am now working on Micheal Foucault Archaeology of Knowledge, especially focus on theory of statements. I do want to ask you a question and learn your opinions. How do you think Foucault theory/concept of statements contribute to political discourse analysis. In what respect do you believe that it is useful in political discourse analysis. That would be very nice if you can shortly share your opinions with key points. Thank you in advance.

Sorry for only replying this late, but you’ve raised a very big question, and I had to re-read some of the Archaeology of Knowledge to see if I can answer it. I’ll try to do so briefly (at the risk of massive oversimplification – the “Archaeology” is, after all, quite a dense work). If I understand Foucault correctly, in its most simple definition, a “statement” is anything that someone says or writes, or as he puts it: “the atom of discourse” (so in a sense: what I’ve called “discourse fragment” above). More specifically, it is a preposition, composed of signs, that allows a subject to establish a position in a broader social context. And this focus on context is where Foucault’s view is interesting: a “statement” is always intertextual. It emerges from and relates to other statements. This interpretation, at least in my understanding, is also the argument that informs the idea of statements in CDA or in political discourse analysis (though Chilton adds a cognitive science angle that is not explicit in Foucault’s work). So, to be honest, I don’t see any contradiction between Foucault’s arguments and the premises of political discourse analysis. Did this answer your question? I should also point out that while the “Archaeology of Knowledge” is strongly about intertextuality, it is only in his later work that Foucault explicitly discusses intersubjectivity. In “Archaeology”, he is still flirting quite a bit with structuralism. Only later does his focus shift from 1) how subjects use the resources of discourse to make statements to 2) how statements also shape subjects. If you are interested in this shift, I can recommend the book by Dreyfus & Rabinow that I’ve referenced in this post: http://www.politicseastasia.com/studying/getting-the-hang-of-discourse-theory/ . Let me know how your work on the “Archaeology of Knowledge” turns out. All the best Florian

Hello Florian, First of all, thank you very much to spending time in answering my question. I really appreciate your effort. I have completed my article, and the answer to this question is that yes !! AK can be useful in analysis of political discourse, but !! it should never be taken as a free-standing approach. Therefore, it should be translated into an appropriate form to provide a theoretical and methodological tools. As he stated: “All my books . . . are little tool boxes . . . if people want to open them, to use this sentence or that idea as a screwdriver or spanner to short-circuit, discredit or smash systems of power, including eventually those from which my books have emerged . . . so much the better”(Cited in Mills, 1997, p.17). Therefore, Foucaultian discourse analysis is not a theoretically informed “attitude” or just another “perspective” in the area of qualitative social research (Diaz-Bone et al, 2007, p.28). Hence, Foucault’s archaeological tools all together constituted a new arsenal for the social scientist who can use these in line with research needs and objectives. Besides giving us a critical line, his project also make new proposals (MacDonnell, 1986, p.83). Therefore, despite some theoretical limitations, a closer look at his work, can lead to the formulation of first steps towards a productive approach of examining political discourses.

Therefore, the AK with its theory of statements and its contribution is perhaps less to be evaluated in terms of the answers that they offer but rather their potential to be a productive and rich `tool box` to find answers in political discourse. Accordingly, one of the important consequences of Foucault’s archaeology of discourse is to put forward a means of analyzing political discourse (Howarth, 2000, p.55, my emphasis). However, to understand this contribution, as you also mentioned, it is important to trace his shift from archaeology to genealogy to assess the effectiveness of this methodology in analyzing the political discourse. For example, the notion of Problematization, as Wolf postulates, in particular, maintains important insights from archaeology for the analysis of political discourse and formations (Wolf,2013,p.39). Therefore, the aim of his archaeology of ‘political knowledge’ is ‘to show whether the political behavior of a society, a group, or a class is not shot through with particular, describable discursive practice (Foucault, 1972, p.194, cited in Howarth, 2000, p.60). This according to Howarth, this necessitates exploring the way in which the objects, enunciative modalities, concepts, strategies of “political activity” are discursively constructed, and then articulated with specific forms of political ‘behaviour, conflicts, decisions, and tactics) (2000,p.60). Therefore, although AK itself is not enough to analyze the political discourse, when it is combined with other tools it does provide a good way of analyzing political discourses.

• Mills, S ( Michel Foucault. Routledge, London, UK and New York, NY, 2003. • Diaz-Bone, R., Bührmann, A.,D.; Gutiérrez R., E.; Schneider, W.; Kendall, G. and Tirado, F. (2007). The Field of Foucaultian Discourse Analysis: Structures, Developments and Perspectives [52 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(2), Art. 30, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0702305 • Howarth D. (2000) `Discourse`, Buckingham: Open University Press • Howarth D. (2002) ‘An Archaeology of Political Discourse? Michel Foucault and the Critique of Ideology’, Political Studies, (2002), Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 117-35. • Macdonell, D. (1986) Theories of Discourse, Blackwell, Oxford. • Dreyfus, H., and Rabinow, P. (1983). Michel Foucault : beyond structuralism and hermeneutics with an afterword by and an interview with Michel Foucault (2nd edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, and the resources you’ve been working with. I think we have a very similar view on how Foucault “plugs into” recent approaches to discourse analysis (…the “toolbox” idea probably gave me away…). Glad to see AK was a rewarding study for you. It really is a very rich and thought-provoking piece of literature.

Thank you Florian, your blog is really very helpful. Best wishes.

Hello Florian, hope you are OK. I was going to ask you a specific question regarding to discourse analysis. I was planing to study a specific ethnic conflict in a particular country by the help of official documents. And my theoretical framework was Foucault’s Archaeology. Basically, I was going to determine the rules of formation of discourses of this specific ethnic conflict and try to show how it has been problematized over the years. However, when I reviewed the literature, I realized that there is too much emphasize on official documents and official discourses. Then I asked myself, social media is full of unofficial discourses in which similar elements of the conflict have been articulated in different ways. After thinking for a while, I thought there might be several methodological difficulties in studying this conflict with the help of discourse analysis and using social media data. What is your opinion? and could you please help/direct me in finding some useful studies in which this way has been conducted? do you think is it feasible? can internal and external validity be achieved ?

Hi Marx. I see what you mean, regarding the bias towards “official” sources, and I sympathize with any attempt to bring in other “layers” of discourse. Social media is indeed a very promising avenue, but as you say exploring such online discourses poses certain methodological challenges. The first problem is that if you are looking at discussions in networks like Facebook, then you would need access and consent to study people’s posts – they are, after all, not necessarily public (there is a great paper on the ethical problems of this sort of research that I can recommend: http://bit.ly/1F2A8ID ). A way around this is to only examine Facebook data on the walls of organizations, e.g. companies, government departments, or NGOs, but you may still have to address questions about anonymity. Another alternative is to look at data in networks that are public, like for instance Twitter. In either case, though, the next problem then is how to collect that data and what to do with it. There are now more and more software solutions for “crawling” web data like this, but I haven’t yet found a tool that really does what I need it to do. Many researchers who do this sort of work have coding skills, so they write their own crawlers. A really good book on this sort of research is Richard Rogers’ “Digital Methods”, just FYI (there’s also great ideas in there on how to “map” social networks – with issues like this, the “relational” data is often just as interesting as the “content”). Finally, when it comes to then analysing content data once you have it, you’ll probably have to do some quantitative sorting before you can get into a qualitative analysis. I use NVivo for this, or Word Smith ( http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/ ). As for studies that examine social media data, I can recommend looking through the past few issues of journals like “New Media & Society” ( http://nms.sagepub.com/ ) or “Information, Communication, and Society” ( http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rics20/current ). These are the kind of academic venues where scholars try to come to grips with questions like these. Hope this helps!

I. LOVE. YOU!

That is all. :D

Hi, I am working on**The role of singing competitions in the (re)production of views about gender: the case of the Voice and I use discourse analysis as a tool but I am really so confused and I didn’t know how to start and what are the things that I should focus on to do my analysis. Please I am looking for your help Florian

Hi Asmaa, it sounds like your project is less about the kind of linguistic strategies that discourse analyses often examine and more about performance and visual communication. Since you are looking at a televised, staged “event”, I would recommend taking a cue from the sort of work that researchers have done on talk shows, media events, and the like (Katz and Dayan come to mind). In terms of the analysis, I would examine how these programmes are structured, and how aspects like mise-en-scene, camera action, and in particular the role of the moderators and judges shape the way gender is represented. If you need a quick introduction to visual analysis, I have written another blog post on that sort of approach: http://www.politicseastasia.com/studying/an-introduction-to-visual-communication-analysis/ . Also, take a look at what has been published on singing and talent competitions – I suspect that X-Factor, China’s Supergirl, and other similar shows have received quite a bit of scholarly attention. Best – F

Hi Asma! Hope you must be fine. Well could you please share some of the work that you have researched with reference to television discourse and also the research proposals and Research Articles/papers that you have in this domain. Because your area of research and my area of research are similar so we may help and support each other. Thanks in Advance

Hi florian I want to appreciate as you are responding to everyone and showing concern really I luv it so im also daring to ask qustion.now my thesis work has started, my interest to go for news analysis obout any burning issue but problem that I m facing is related to theory , whose theory I have to take for such analysis, loking for ur help

Hi Sumaira, When it comes to news analysis, I normally advise students to look at two theoretical concepts: agenda setting and framing. Agenda setting is about how media outlets generally shape what is considered relevant at any particular point in time, through their choices of what to report on (e.g. what to place on the front pages or what to cover in the main evening news on TV). Framing is more closely related to discourse analysis: it’s about how particular communication choices shape the discussion on a topic and guide it along specific lines. For instance, when news media talk about the “war on terror”, then the topic is placed into a framework of military analogies, which lead to very different arguments and conclusions than a frame that evokes problems of economic development, for instance. If you find these kind of distinctions useful, I’d recommend looking into the framing literature to give your discourse analysis a theoretical background that connects to news. Important authors in that field are Robert Entman, Paul D’Angelo, and Jim Kuypers. Does this make sense? Best – F

what wuld u suggest if my work is about tussle among political leaders on one particular issue and how different news papers portray that.what about fair clough 3D model in this regard……

Hi Sumaira! Hope you must be fine. Well could you please share some of the work that you have researched with reference to television discourse and also the research proposals and Research Articles/papers that you have in this domain. Because your area of research and my area of research are similar so we may help and support each other. Thanks in Advance

i am indeed happy to find this write up. i know it will be useful to me in my progect work but still confused on what to do abt my topic ” a discourse analysis on journalese: a case of waiting for an angel” by helon habila. pls wat can u say about it. thnks

I’m afraid I haven’t read the novel, so I’m probably of very little help here. If I understand your assignment correctly, it asks about how journalism is presented in the novel, right? or does it mean: how does the novel itself make use of journalistic tropes? Depending on what exactly the question is, you would be looking at different things. In the first case, I would go through the book and I would mark all instances in which the author discusses journalism, and specifically the way that journalists write. I would then examine the language carefully to see what position the author presents: what is presented as valuable? what is presented negatively? how do these presentations tie into the overall political thrust of the novel? In the second case, I would examine core passages of the normal and I would analyse how the language that the author uses works. Without having read the book, however, I’d be hard pressed to give any advice on what that analysis would look like. It might be good discussing this further with your supervisor.

Hi kindly help me understand this quote,’ what is crucial within the framework of critical discourse analysis is the realization that the positioning of discourse elements is not a value-free process. Analyzing this process can help us better understand the relationship between the society in which texts are created and in many ways create the society.’ what does ‘not value-free process.’ mean?

Thanks for sharing this quote, though without more information on who wrote it and in what context I can’t promise that I’m understanding this the way it was intended. I would assume the author is trying to point out that communication is never unbiased and objective. Each and every statement we make always caries with it certain assumptions and reflects certain values. Doing a discourse analysis is therefore also an analysis of what those values are, and from what position a statement is being made.

I would like to study discourse and disability. My aim is to examine how the disabled are represented in the media. Could you give me some advice?

Have you looked at the work that my colleague Sarah Dauncey has been doing? She’s worked on disability discourses in China. Even if your own work isn’t on China specifically, you might find her articles to be a good entry-point into discussions about disability, identity, and representation: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/chinese/people/sarah.dauncey

Thank you very much. I’ll contact with her

Hi, I find this article very useful n got inspired how you guide the researchers. I want to seek guidance about how to do critical discourse anlysis of beauty ads with respect to feminism. My question is that beauty is always represented by women, then what would be my the stand point for my work. I am confused about on which aspect should I focus. kindly recommend me key theorist for such research. Looking for your advice.

I think examining gender in advertising is always a good project – loads to explore! I suspect, though, that much like Asmaa above (see my comment) you’ll find it more rewarding to analyse the visuals than the text. The two of course go together, but particularly since you are interested in beauty ads, I would suggest a visual analysis of such adds. I would probably compile the various symbols and visual tropes you come across (including body language of the models, colour schemes, camera angles) and would try to figure out how these elements connect with the written words (e.g. advertising slogans). What ideals of femininity do different campaigns draw from? What feelings and ideas are they trying to sell? What psychological mechanisms do they deploy to draw potential customers in? You’ll have to of course explain why you picked certain brands and campaigns, but if you are able to link that sort of analysis to the work that has already been done on advertising and gender, you should have an intriguing project.

Hi Florian, I ve read your article on visual communication. It had cleared up my concepts about moving visuals. Can you help me which visual theory will work more appropriately? Kress n Van Leeuwen`s visual grammar will be good to analyse the representation of women in TV beauty ads.Kindly do guide me with your valuable advice. looking for your guidance. thanks

Hi Ghzala, Kress & Van Leeuwen are definitely a good way to get at both the “semantics” and the “lexicon” of visual communication. In fact, I use the same metaphor of visual “grammar” in my own teaching, though always with the note that visual materials are not necessarily the same as text. With that in mind: by all means, take a look at more of the two authors’ writings on semiotics. I can also recommend an edited volume by Van Leeuwen that presents a number of very good, short introductions to different visual analysis approaches. I suspect you’d also find good material for your own studies there. It’s called “The Handbook of Visual Analysis”: http://amzn.to/1FeFDR7 .

Hi Ghazala! Hope you must be fine. Well could you please share some of the work that you have researched with reference to television discourse and also the research proposals and Research Articles/papers that you have in this domain. Because your area of research and my area of research are similar so we may help and support each other. One of my Research friend had also done his research in the likable idea so we may help each other Thanks in Advance

Hey Florian, I hope you are doing well. Thank you so much for your help

Thanks for posting this. Clears up a lot of stuff. I’m trying to shove this topic into my brain so I can do something else. I really only need to know a little of what you’ve described here — in wonderfully clear terms. But coming into this area of research… I didn’t even know what to search for. The last three days I’ve gone from Concept to Grammar Tagging to ontologies linguistics semantics sentiment classification, Sentiment analysis, Polarity Shifting, and finally found Discourse analysis — which brings me here. *head hurts* .. so.. I’m really glad you decided to post this. :-)

Sounds like quite the journey. Thanks for the kind words.

Hello Florian and again thank you for this great guide. I am right now in the process of starting a project and would like to ask for your advice.

I am thinking of analysing the discourse of the Munich Security Conference 2015, taking place right now and hosting basically all big actors in Europe and the US. I have an idea of comparing the High Representative’s discourse to that of the Foreign ministers’ of France, Britain and Germany, to find common ground and differences on Russia and the Ukraine crisis.

An alternative would be to analyse one actor’s discourse over time on Russia. I am looking for the most basic of these two since time is scarce, so briefly put; which is the easiest discourse analysis to conduct, one analysing discours over time or, a comparison of discourse at a certain time of different actors?

Also, if you have any further (reading) tips on comparative discourse analysis or my specific issue, I am more than all ears.

Thanks in advance, and again big cheers for this amazing site.

Hey! Thanks for the question. I think both projects are doable, but I would probably find the comparison between different actors at one point in time more intriguing, and I suspect this would also be more manageable. If anything, I’d pick statements that appeared before and after the conference, but I would keep the time-frame relatively tight (e.g. one month overall, if that makes sense empirically). A long-term analysis of one actor is a bit more challenging, since you need to contextualize the sources based on what was happening at different times (for the Munich Security Conference topic, you only need to do this once). Also, you’d have to explain why you picked the time-frame you chose, and what makes a good longitudinal analysis (10 years? 20 years? 100?) I normally tell students to only do a historical analysis if they have a lot of time on their hands, and ideally only once they reach the level of PhD – after all, this is the sort of thing that Foucault looked at, and his books are not exactly short treatments of the subject… Hope this helps!

Hi again and thank you for your response, hope you get the website issue figured out. I just have a quick question regarding your advice to analyse the discourses before and after the security conference – I was more thinking to analyse the discourse during the three days (the audiovisual documentation is extensive). Do you think this would be possible and meaningful?

More specifically I am planning to analyse the construction of ‘the other’, that being Russia, during the conference. Framework concerning the construction of ‘the other’ given by Lene Hansen in “Security as practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War” – Just in case you’ve heard of it.

Thanks again!

Ah yes, that makes a lot of sense. This way you’ll have a classic ‘synchronous’ analysis – three days should work well (and wouldn’t really qualify as an analysis ‘over time’ anyways, unless you suddenly spot a particularly noteworthy ‘shift’ in the discourse you think you can map). I haven’t read Hansen’s article, but it sounds like that would indeed make a good backdrop for what you have in mind.

Hi Florian, thanks for this posting! From Ethiopia,now I will’ve planned to work my BA on discourse analysis of L.King’s speech text”I have seen the promised land”. Is it good title for BA? If it is good how to I can write references? Thank you!

This sounds like a very nice topic. You could simply look at the rhetorical strategies in the text (and arguably you wouldn’t need to call that a discourse analysis – a lot of political speeches have been analyzed that way), or you could place additional emphasis on intertextuality (who and what gets referenced or implied) and on the social context. The latter approach would make for a good discourse analysis, I would think. As for your question, do you mean what literature you should reference? Or do you mean how you should reference the speech throughout your thesis? If it’s the former, you could use any of the sources I’ve reference above as your starting point, plus the journals I’ve mentioned in the comment section – the back issues might include contributions that deal with speeches. I also tell my students to look at this book on the “Lost Art of the Great Speech” ( http://amzn.to/1KFpB5Q ). It’s not technically about how to analyze speeches, but it includes a lot of information you might nonetheless find useful. If your question is more about how to use the source material, I would take a digital copy of the speech and I would create different versions for my analysis, for example one in which I mark the different structural sections in different colours; one in which I mark up all the metaphors; etc. I would place these materials in an appendix, and I would copy particularly illustrative examples from the speech into the main text of the thesis, to underscore my argument. Is that roughly what you were wondering about?

Thank you very much! I’m happy for your advice & encourage.I apprieciate you,for you got my exact question. Now I understood all of what you adviced me & I’m on way to do my theses. LIFE SAVER MAN! Thanks once again!!!

You’re more than welcome. Good luck!

Hello, Can you kindly send me some kinds of different texts with discourse analysis examples on them ? I am actually confusing with analysis process ?

Please for your help

I’m afraid I don’t have any examples at hand that I could share to illustrate what such a mark-up looks like. You could check the back issues of journals like Discourse & Communication or handbooks that deal with discourse analysis to see what such analyses usually entail. Paul Chilton’s book ‘Analyzing Political Discourse’ definitely has some useful examples in it, and I recall that Norman Fairclough’s books do as well (though I don’t have one in front of me right now).

am writing the CDA of Media Awards using the Van Dijk model but i need clear interpretation of the model. please interpret for me so that i know what information is needed.

Hi Patrick, I’m not sure I can help you with this one. Interpreting a theoretical framework like van Dijk’s and applying it to your own research is part of the research process, so I can’t do this for you. It’s crucial that you figure this out yourself. What I would advise is to check what kind of questions van Dijk asks in his own analyses, and to then see if any of these questions apply to the kind of study you wish to do. You can then critically check whether the way in which van Dijk answers his questions make sense or not for your case. In that way you can also provide a critical assessment of van Dijk’s work and contribute an informed opinion of your own to the discussion.

Hi there! I’ve read your article and it really did clarify lots of doubts I’ve had about what discourse analysis is and what not. However, i’ve got a question. I’m working on my thesis and my topic is “Discourse analysis of how media portrays Islam as a religion” and I’ll take into consideration mayor news sources like Fox News (which would be at a regional level of audience) CCN (international) and BBC News (which is taken more seriously in comparison to the other two). Anyways, I’m planning on analyzing articles and interviews, now, the question is: how can I analyze both of them without making this such an exhausting and extremely broad work? I’d truly appreciate an advice, my tutor is not helping much, sadly.

Hi Paola, this is a good question. I responded to a similar problem above, in David’s post (see my response from 17 December). In short, you’ll probably have to narrow down your focus by picking a particular time frame. A specific event might provide a good catalyst for studying such discourses: that way you would be able to compare directly what the three news outlets reported on the topic during a short period of time (e.g. a week or two). I would then probably look at the broader discursive strategies that each outlet deploys – a full linguistic analysis of the data seems a bit much. If you need to conduct a more detailed analysis, you would have to select specific representative texts. You could do so by first conducting a quantitative analysis of your materials (e.g. what does word distribution tell you about the sources?) and then select particularly interesting texts for closer examination based on these initial findings. Another good way to select specific articles would be to first sort and categorize your sources, for instance based on the headlines. You could then pick the ones that are most readily comparable or that focus most directly on the theme you plan to study. Does this make sense? Overall, I would advise you to be careful not to pick too much material. I normally tell students to only compare different sources if they have a good strategy in place for limiting the amount of data. Without such a strategy, it might be easier to focus on one outlet only (e.g. the FOX discourse).

Hi Florian! As others, I think your articles are great! I would value your opinion on my thesis idea. I would like to write on how the late 19th century American Populist discourse on class, race and gender changed in relation to contemporary historical events (such as elections and economic depressions) by using CDA. Thank you very much!

Hi Max, This sounds like a great topic. What kind of thesis are we talking about? If this is a PhD project, it might be feasible. Anything smaller, like an MA, and I would advise you to narrow it down much more. Either way, you’d be looking at a lot of materials, not to mention three different themes/variables, so be careful that you don’t end up doing too much. I do like the idea of using historical events to see how they functioned as catalysts for these discourses. By the way, you may want to check a book by my colleague Peter Hays Gries, which deals with popular opinion in America – it is specifically about contemporary foreign policy, and it does not provide a discourse analysis as such, but he uses historical events as well to contextualize where certain views and arguments come from. Might be useful inspiration for your project. Here’s the link: http://amzn.to/1x4vRTV . Let me know how the project evolves!

Dear Florian, your article really sets a great framework for discourse analysis. Thank you!

I am a PhD student (1st year) in media and my project is about China’s soft power projection (the responsible economic stakeholder thesis) in its transnational media institutions during China’s media going-out period (2009-current). I am thinking to use two international programs hosted by China as my sampling background, the 2010 Shanghai Expo and the 2014 Beijing APEC, since they involve a series of economic events between China and foreign countries, and they can also help me to examine the evolution of media going-out strategy and China’s soft power projection. I would like to seek your advice if discourse analysis is a suitable method for my research because I now cannot decide to use discourse analysis or agenda-building theory, since they both seem to be closely related to my research. I am sincerely looking forward to hearing from you!

Best wishes! Linda

Dear Linda, This is an exciting topic. “Responsible stakeholder”… I assume you’re also looking into the English School of International Relations? I can see parallels to discussions of China as a norm-challenger or norm-entrepreneur in international society. Definitely a controversial issue. Methodologically, I would think that discourse analysis would serve you well here. I always thought of “agenda-setting” as something that’s connected to discourse, rather than as something that stands apart. Setting the agenda is, after all, about setting the parameters for discourse: which topics people talk about in a particular setting or context (e.g. mass media reporting on an event). So I don’t think these two things are mutually exclusive. What I would recommend for two events like this is to also draw from visual communication analysis and from work that examines exhibitions and events. Specifically on the Expo, you might find my own articles interesting (the list of references will give you a good take on who has written on the topic and in what ways). The first article is in an edited volume: “Discourse, Politics and Media in Contemporary China” (edited by Qing Cao, Hailong Tian and Paul Chilton; John Benjamins Publishing, 2014). My chapter is called “It’s a Small World after all? Simulating the future world order at the Shanghai Expo” (pp.97-120). The follow-up article is called: “The Futurities and Utopias of the Shanghai World Exposition” and is available as an Asiascape Ops paper: http://www.asiascape.org/resources/publications/asiascape_ops_7.pdf . I’ve also written a post on this website that goes with those articles: http://www.politicseastasia.com/research/shanghai-expo-research/ . I hope these resources are interesting for your project. Let me know how what you find out in your research! Best Florian

[…] I feel like I’m barely scratching the surface here, as this was my first text mining request. Anna* and I looked at discourse analysis as a textual research method, which requires close reading of a few articles (cf tutorial at Politics East Asia). […]

Hi Florian.I am Imene from Algeria. Your articles are great! It will be a pleasure for me to see your opinion on my topic of research .I would like to discover how are women portrayed in Algerian rai songs by male singers.As a research tool I designed a questionnaire searching for the most common songs listened to by people in Algeria and how women are depicted by male singers .I ll analyse the words or expressions singers use to refer to the concept woman. But the problem I m facing is that I do not know how to do that. I wish you can help me with your opinion.Thank you !

Dear Imene, Your topic sounds very intriguing. It seems to me that you should get in touch with your supervisor to decide on the exact procedures you’ll use in your study. What I would advise is to first explore the production background of these songs (who are the singers and writers, what kind of economic and social constraints do they work under, etc.) and to then subject the representative lyrics you’ve chosen to a detailed analysis. I suspect that work-steps 4, 7, and 8 above might be particularly helpful in this regard: try to identify recurring themes, then collect all statements on each theme and examine how the language works in each instance to make statements on gender. If you relate what you find back to the production background, and of course to the literature on Algerian music and on gender more generally, then you should have a very exciting study indeed.

Dear Florian , Thanks for the very simple yet helpful tutorial. I am writing my graduation project about Carl Schmitt.I read about Schmitt and weimar Germany and I read Schmitt’s legality and legitimacy I was amazed by how some scholars identify Schmitt as a thinker with a Nazi orientation ( the crown jurist of the third reich) while others seem to be more apologetic about his thought and life. One scholar even called Schmitt the Medusa of political philosophy because he sparked so much controversy amongst scholars so i thought I should compare his notion of legitimacy to the one proposed in the Nazi political philosophy. I think this would be very important in order to position Schmitt’s thought during the weimar republic and understand the affinities it has to the Nazi political philosophy. I am thinking of relying primarily on Schmitt’s Legality and Legitimacy and a secondary source about Nazi political philosophy. Do you think that Discourse analysis is the right approach to use for my question? my main hypothesis is that schmitt’s concept of legitimacy was practically the same concept introduced by Nazi jurists.

Dear Alaa, It sounds like your project indeed has some proximity to discourse analysis, though you could also call what you have planned a study in history of ideas. The two are arguably related. First and foremost, you’d be looking at how a particular idea or ideological construct has “traveled” from one source to another. Close reading of the primary source materials might already do the job in exploring that issue, and the field of history and intellectual history should provide ample methods and theories on how to proceed. This is not to say that you couldn’t also make use of discourse analysis, but usually approaches in discourse analysis are interested in either (or often both) of the following issues: a) how exactly does language work in the materials, and how do linguistic strategies get deployed to formulate and shape concepts? and b) what role do economic, political, and social institutions play in how a concept gets deployed, in other words: how do social relations and power influence how a discourse (e.g. on legitimacy) gets shaped? If you are interested in either of these dimensions, then adding discourse analysis to your toolbox for this study could be fruitful. Depending on how you phrase your question, however, it may not be essential.

Dear Florian, Thans a lot for you help I really appreciate what you re doing !!! thans again

Thanks for this highly-informative post, Florian!

I’ve encountered some peer-reviewed articles that discuss the possibility of using mathematical techniques to analyse discourses. Here’s one example: “Discourse Analysis of Public Debates Using Corpus Linguistic Methodologies”.

Although there is no larger attempt at formalizing discourse analysis as yet, I think this will soon follow, given the positivist tendencies of contemporary social research. Can you suggest any specific approach to discourse analysis for someone who is comfortable with a purely qualitative research?

I agree that quantitative methods will play an increasingly important role in the field – in a way, they already have been becoming more relevant the past decade, due to better technology. Personally, I mainly use quantitative methods as an entry point into large amounts of text. My analyses are largely qualitative – I still think that is where the real “meat” is to be found. In that sense, everything you see in the list of references should fit your bill. Take a look at Chilton, for example, if you want a comprehensive qualitative approach. Similarly Ruth Wodak’s work might also be for you (not referenced above, though). Aside from her own writing, she’s edited quite a number of useful books, like this one: http://amzn.to/1D6DQk9 (I imagine ch.1 and ch.2 will be interesting in this context, possibly also 5).

HI.Mr Florian I am writing my graduation project about net-speak and its impact on the academic English language, I plan to analyze a sample of massages taken from facebook, (interaction between friends using net-speak). I will analyze them from the linguistic perspective. My question is: am I doing discourse analysis??

Hi Malik, You may be putting the carriage before the horse, so to speak. The important issue is: do you have a question about discourse? If you do, then you can deploy the language analysis you are doing to try and answer it. If you are only interested in the linguistics of online net-speak, then that would not necessarily have to be a discourse analysis. In that sense, I’d have a similar response to the one I wrote to Alaa above: are you interested in finding out how social relations and power influence the use of English language (online and offline)? If that is part of your interest, then by all means: go ahead and give discourse analysis a try.

Hi,Mr FLORIAN thank you soo much.

Hello sir. my name is Mohamed and I seek your help, my teacher recommeded that I should ask guidance from you concerning my work which I intend to submit in fulfillment of a master degree. I have decided to work on critical discourse analysis, and I am in a bit of a situation here. I intend to analyse two newspaper articles using fairclough’s model of analysis which he introduced in his book language and power 1989. my problem is, I cannot make use of this model and I don’t know how to approach the articles. I would really appreciate it if you could help me with any suggestions.

Hello Mohamed, Fairclough’s seminal book can indeed be quite the challenge, particularly if you are looking for hands-on, practical advice on how to conduct a critical discourse analysis. That’s probably because so much of Language and Power is concerned with conceptual issues. Personally, I find chapters 5 (and to a lesser extent chapter 6) to be the most practical. Overall, what Fairclough is trying to show, I believe, is that we should understand our social world as in no small part constructed through the way people speak and write, which means we can use linguistic analysis to figure out how that construction process works (essentially what I have described in step 8 above). If you want another source on how to do CDA, I usually recommend this compendium by Wodak and Krzyzanowski: http://amzn.to/1D6DQk9 (see also my response to RJ above). It covers a great range of media types and strategies, each with practical examples. Maybe something of that sort would be of help? I hope this answers your question. Good luck with the MA!

hi again, Mr FLORIAN i have dificulties in designing the questions of my questionaire and i which that you can help me please knowing that i am working on the attitudes of young Algerian generation towards gender stereotypes in proverbs thankx

It looks like these are really two separate questions (if I understand you correctly): the first is how to analyze stereotypes in proverbs, and the second is how to construct a questionnaire for a survey. On that second question, I would recommend taking a look at chapter 10 in Neuman’s “Social Research Methods” ( http://amzn.to/1CEgptZ ). See if your library has a copy of the most recent edition, and if not: it’s usually quite possible to get earlier editions at a cheap price (e.g. used). As for your first question, I would try to figure out whether there are recurring patterns in the proverbs you have collected. I would then create categories of stereotypes and would divide the proverbs into these categories. You can then take a closer look at the language within each category to see how the proverbs “work” in each case, and whether there are things that they all have in common. I suspect that you’ll come across quite a few similes and metaphors. If you need help making sense of how metaphors work, there’s two great books on the subject: George Lakoff’s “Metaphor’s We Live By” ( http://amzn.to/1D71UCc ) and Fauconnier & Turner’s “The Way We Think” ( http://amzn.to/1CEi7LI ). Of course, if you are working on a smaller project, then it might be overkill to delve so deeply into theoretical issues. You’ll have to decide how much you want to read in that regard. At any rate, I hope the practical tips above help!

hi,i’ m working on female teacher interaction,i’m going to use observation and interview tools but i have problemm of how to analyse;i need your help.

Hi Alia, I think the answer to your question depends on what exactly you plan to analyse. For instance, if you are mainly interested in the statements that your interviewees make (for instance on a particular issue or topic like “gender differences in class” or “solving conflicts in class”, or some such), then it might suffice to simply compile all the statements on that topic and then check who says what. You may not need a lot of detailed linguistics to do that. On the other hand, if you want to figure out how the interviews themselves played out, then you’d probably be looking into how your interviewees said what they said, and how their communication strategies legitimated what they had to say. You’d have to come up with categories of recurring patterns that you’ve observed (coding – point 4 above), then collect the text fragments that belong to each category, and finally examine in detail how the linguistic elements and rhetorical components contribute to the discussion and its dynamics (point 8 above). Hope this helps.

thanks a lot for your help Mr Florian , it was really useful for my work.

my name is sihem and I seek your help, my teacher recommeded that I should ask guidance from you concerning my work which I intend to submit in fulfillment of a master degree.l’m doing male and female cyberbullying and l used qualitative approach with participants observation on facebook by trying to analyse the language used there” comments and posts” and translate the because the majority are in arabic so my question is what kind of analysis shall l follow plz add me

Hi Sihem, I don’t know if you saw my response to Esther above (August 5, 2014), on the analysis of Facebook discourses – you may want to check out a few of the sources I’ve mentioned there (i.e. the back issues of journals like New Media & Society). On the issue of translation, it’s important to analyse texts in their original language (in this case: Arabic). Any combination of work-steps I’ve described above could apply in this regard, depending on what questions you wish to answer. Once you have done your analysis, you can of course present your results by translating selected quotes from your sources as illustration for your argument (though I would always also provide the original wording alongside my own translation, so that your readers can check whether you translated well). I’m afraid I can’t comment on the difficulties you might encounter working with Arabic, since I regrettably don’t speak the language, but you might also find the following blog post of mine on “Discourse Analysis and Foreign Languages” useful: http://www.politicseastasia.com/studying/discourse-analysis-and-foreign-languages/ . In it, I mostly discuss issues related to Chinese language, but the introduction and the section about translation choices might nevertheless give you some pointers. Good luck with the MA!

thanks a lot and actually l’m using the mthod as you tell me . it is pleasure to know you madam

thankx a lot for your help Mr Florian , it was really useful for my research

Hi MR Floran, I’m writing my master project on: The influence of Fairy tales on Algerian young girl’s perception of gender roles. So i’m seeking to know if fairy tales have an impact on girls’ views of behaviors and roles performed by male and females. I’m gonna do a qualitative interview with the girls plus group disscussion. My question is: Should i do a discourse analyses on a traditional fairy tales , eg: Cinderrela . Or interview and group disscusion is enough. Thank you

Also , I don’t know how to analyse the interview

Hi Sanaa, I would probably try not to do too much. I suspect that a discourse analysis of the fairy tales and the interviews / group discussions will be a bit much for an MA project. You can probably make a good case for not going into the actual fairy tales in detail, particularly if you are able to find secondary literature on stereotypes and discourses in that genre (you’ll have to check your library system, but I suspect you’ll find quite a lot). As for the interviews, it depends a bit what you want to achieve. Take a look at my response to Alia from 11 April above. She had a very similar concern, and I would probably give you the same advice. Hope this is helpful!

good day sir

I am from South Africa currently doing my honours at the University of Stellenbosch. Two thing:

Firstly, thank you for an amazing piece of work. I have to make a 15 minute presentation on discourse analysis and your concise description on this methodology helped a lot. Knowing where to start wasn’t the only thing I got from this, but also where to end. hahaha

Secondly, as I read all the millions of comments and you replying on every single one I want to thank you. Not just for the work, but also for being such a wonderful person and so helpful, taking time to read and help where you can. We definitely need more people like you. I have so much respect for you as a person AND your work.

Thank you again Dean

Dear Dean, Thank you for your kind words. I’m glad that you’ve found the website and the discussion forum helpful. That really means a lot to me. Enjoy the rest of your studies! Best Florian

Hi Sir, I’m doing a research on children’s reponces to fairy tales, (the impact of these stories on girls), I’m using a qualitative interview , I also want to ask the girls to write stories to analyse, but i don’t know if i can use this method, and what do we call this method, is it obervation or… ! so i’m a bit confused . Thank you

Hi Sanaa, I think it’s a great idea to have kids write their own versions of certain fairy tales – this sounds very similar to “diary studies” in ethnography (or the study of “creative writing”, for that matter). I can imagine that a combination of interviews and creative writing from the students will give you a great amount of useful material, all of which you can analyze using discourse analysis if you so choose. You could, for instance, examine which elements of a story the students emphasise, how they frame the story, how they represent gender and inter-personal relations in their writing, and so on. Again, be careful not to do too much, though. Depending on the amount of students and the number of interviews you are also planning, you may have your hands quite full. This is, after all, only an MA thesis. Also, one last remark: make sure to carefully consider the ethical implications of such research with kids. It’s important to assure anonymity, and of course consent of the parents, and you should make a good case in the thesis that you are not causing your research subjects any distress. All of this is worth discussing with your supervisor before you proceed. Most universities have fixed ethic procedures for research that concerns (and affects) children.

Hellp Mr.Florian,I m Imene I have already asked you for a help concerning my topic of research (The portrayel of women in Algerian modern Rai songs by male artists).In my practical part I planned an open ended questionnaire to see respondents ‘ attitudes about rai music,what are most common subjects and themes that modern rai songs usually cover,and to state some of words or expressions terms do modern Rai singers usually use to describe women in their songs ,and if women are negatively or positively represented in modern Rai by male artists.The last item in the questionnaire i asked them to state some of modern rai songs that are mostly listened to by people.Well in this last item what m i going to do , ??? I m a bit confused concerning my pactical part I would like to have your opinion !!VERY GREATFUL FOR YOUR HELP !!!!

Hi Imene, If I understand you correctly, you are you wondering what to do with the answers to your last questionnaire item once you have the responses, right? That very much depends on why you put that item on your list in the first place (you must have had a good reason to be interested in this). You could ask this kind of question at the start (rather than the end) of your survey, and you could then use the information to later look at particularly popular songs in the research. This means you would then have to look at those songs in detail, though. Or you could ask the question at the end as a simple check as to what music the person listens to who just gave you a particular take on Rai songs. There might be differences within the genre, after all, and knowing who comes from what corner of the field may help you interpret their earlier responses.

Hello Florian, thank you very much for posting this. However, I got a huge request. I have to write a seminar paper until April 22nd and I used the CDA analysis as the tool for the Representation of the muslim community in the press. I used the social actors strategies for my analysis, however I am afraid that these analysis categories won’t be enough for my analysis. Do you have a suggestion on how I could improve it? p.s. I just have found your article and therefore I am in deep trouble because I need your help in the short term Thanks

This is quite late before your deadline, and I’m not sure how I can help you. You may have to check with fellow students to see how they solved the issue you are facing. I can only say that studying social actors in texts usually means checking how the protagonists and the antagonists are constructed through language, so which communication strategies the creators of the text used to present themselves and the people/institutions they positively identify with, and how they present the “others”. Is this what you had in mind? If so, you should probably look at the language choices in sentences where such “self” and “other” distinctions are pertinent (see work-step 8 above).

Thank you very much for the quick response. As I mentioned before I am trying to analyze newspaper articles in order to see how a community is represented, therefore I chose CDA. My professor said that I need categories for the discourse analysis but I do not quite know what he means by that. I also think that point 8 is quite similar to that what I already did( social actors strategies). maybe you could know what he exactly means by categories of discourse analysis?

He likely means what I discuss above, in step 4: coding categories. As you go through your data, you are looking for recurring patterns that are worth exploring. A systematic analysis is therefore well-served if you collect sections of the data under certain categories or tags and then analyze in detail why these categories might be prevalent in the text, how they relate to other categories, and how the statements on each category work. For example, if you were looking at a US policy document, you might find that it contains a lot of military language, that it keeps bringing up “Russia” or “China” as relevant actors, that it contains ideas related to freedom and liberty, and so on. It might then be wise to create categories for each phenomenon (so: “military”, “foreign nation-states”, “freedom”, etc.) and then see how these themes play out in your materials more broadly. Hope this helps.

Hello Florian, I apologize for not answering your question right away but these days have been like hell. Thank you for your support and your help. I have never experienced such a a support on the internet, thank you for that. And it turned out that the way of my analysis was quite good. I wish you all the best and I have to add that everybody (including myself) in this discussion board appreciates what you are doing.

Hi Thomas, I’m happy that your project turned out well. And thanks for the words of support. This means a lot to me! All the best for the rest of yours studies.

Social actors strategies by Reisigl and Wodak*

This is incredibly helpful, thank you sir!

mr Florian schneider can i have your email i have a term paper and if you dont mind i wanna ask some questions?

Dear Yahya, If it’s a general question about method, then I’ll do my best to answer it. I cannot, however, read specific course assignments like term papers and comment on them. These are exams, and as such the point is that you figure them out with the materials you receive in class. If you need help with a term paper, I would suggest you contact your supervisor or instructor at your university. Of course, if you have a question regarding discourse analysis that I can help with, then feel free to post it here or send an email to me through the “contact” section on this website.

Hello sir, this is really helpful, thank you :) I’m wondering if you have any publication specifically on methods? Cheers!

Hi Ana, I’m glad this is useful to you. I’m afraid my publications on methods like discourse analysis and visual analysis are primarily the posts you’ll find here. Since it’s an academic website/blog, you shouldn’t have any problems citing them like other sources – as long as you are aware that these pieces are not peer-reviewed. The only peer-reviewed publication I have available is on digital methods in Asian Studies ( http://www.politicseastasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/DIAS-2.1-2-Schneider-2015.pdf ), though that may not be what you have in mind. On visual communication analysis, you can also take a look at the appendix of my book, which discusses the methodology of that project. Otherwise I would recommend citing the blog posts themselves and adding the URL and the date of last access.

Hi Mr. Schneider, thanks so much, I’ll certainly cite this blogpost as needed. Cheers!

Dear Schneider, I’d like to work on discourse analysis for my MA these, but am really lost. I don’t know how to start reading and how to find a research gap os a suggested topic. Could you advice and help me? Thank you,

Dear Lareen, Sorry for only seeing your comment now. I’m currently still in Asia for research, and somehow the notification didn’t reach me. I don’t know if my advice is still helpful at this time? It’s been four weeks, so you may have moved on, but maybe just this much by way of advice: I would always try to set up a analysis based on something that spikes your interest, rather than based on what has or hasn’t been done yet. I realize we tell students that their work needs to address some “gap” in the literature, but to be honest, I’m not sure this is still a good requirement in 2015: in fields like sociology or political science, thousands (!) of new papers are produced each month (!), so any review of the literature can always only be partial. You’d have to check with your supervisor, of course, but I’d say: pick a theme that you are personally interested in, and for which you would like to figure out how it works in a particular medium or a specific publication (e.g. war reporting on the BBC in the aftermath of a specific event, or how disease prevention is discussed in a set of policy documents in a particular country before and after a health crisis, etc.). Then see if there are any studies related to that topic. This can then give you an idea of what arguments other people have made, regardless of whether they have studied the discourse or not. This step will usually help you generate additional questions or narrow your questions down, but I would always advise keeping your original general question in mind. It is, after all, what sparked your interest in the first place. If you can then get your hands on the primary sources you want to study, and you conduct a discourse analysis with the concerns in mind that some of the literature discusses, you can check whether other people’s arguments make sense when compared to how the discourse is structured.

As I said, you may already have moved on with your project, but if you want to ask additional questions or want to post an update here, feel free to do so. Again: apologies for the terribly late reply!

Dear Schneider, Thanks for your reply. That’s fine. There is no need to apologize.That is very kind of you. I have not moved on yet. I found your comments really helpful. I appreciate that! Could you please help me in finding resources to DA to read about. Thank you,

Dear Lareen, Glad I could still help. As for readings, aside from the references at the bottom of the article, you might want to start with the edited books by Ruth Wodak. There is one that introduces different approaches to discourse analysis ( http://amzn.to/1NuFChc ) and one that covers the analysis of different sources and media types ( http://amzn.to/1U2Tp3P ). I imagine you’ll find a lot of useful information in those pages. Hope this helps!

A brilliant, gripping and helpful post. Indeed, bright, tight and right. Reads like the complete idiot’s guide to CDA. Thanks!

hello Mr. Schneider

a very informative blog post…i wanted to discuss the scope and possibility of my research topic that i want to pursue for my PhD research. i want to analyse the manifestos of 5 major political parties in 2013 general elections held in Pakistan. i want to analyse the language of manifestos by using fairclough’s three dimensional model and by using software like Antconc for comparison of these manifestos. kindly guide me that this topic is workable or not? what else i can do to broaden the scope of this topic. thank you

Dear Aalia, My apologies for only replying now. As I just wrote to Lareen above, I’ve been away on research myself, and not all posts reached me like they normally would. I think your topic sounds very intriguing. Personally, I don’t know enough about the political parties in Pakistan, or the nature of these manifestos, so I can’t comment on how relevant these materials are in the context of Pakistan’s political landscape, but if you believe this will provide you with an interesting entry-point into the political ideologies of the main actors, this could be very interesting. You’d also already have your primary materials lined up, so that’s a big advantage. Maybe two quick comments: first, it of course makes good sense to have a particular theoretical framework in mind for a project like this, and if you think Fairclough will help you answer your questions, then by all means draw from his work. I would nevertheless advise you to compare this framework to what others have done, and to treat it as part of a large discourse-analysis toolbox that you can pick from depending on your interests. There might be other useful concepts and ideas out there that also apply here, or you might find that Fairclough’s approach has limitations that you need to address or overcome. All of his should then later be part of your theory discussion, of course, and you may have already worked in this direction. Nevertheless, my advice would be to not narrow your theoretical framework down too early in the project. Second, you’ll have to decide precisely what questions you want to ask of your sources, and you need to figure out whether the five manifestos will indeed provide you with enough material to answer your questions. I could easily imagine, for instance, that the manifestos will provide you with a solid foundation of what the official, ideological “party line” is for each party, but that in and of itself might not be the most interesting question to ask. Would it make sense, for example, to then check which of the main points in each manifesto the parties promoted during the election campaigns, which of them were discussed in the press or in other public forums, or which politicians picked what aspects to talk about in speeches? In such a case, you would have to carefully expand your materials (and be careful to not do too much), but you might be able to connect the official party discourses with broader public discourses, with issues such as agenda-setting and framing in the press, or with their actual instantiation in specific circumstances. Just a thought. As always, make sure to run your ideas by your supervisors – they have to be on board with the choices you are making. But do let me know what you decide, and how your project plays out. This sounds like an exciting PhD plan.

Thank for your help. I appreciate it!!! Thank you, Lareen

[…] http://www.politicseastasia.com/studying/how-to-do-a-discourse-analysis/ […]

Dear Mr. Florian , This is a v. rich article about discourse analysis and a well written one too . Can you give me some tips about medical discourse analysis , as I am a linguist and going to analysis medical texts , what are the programs and methods I should use and follow? Thank you , Haidy

Dear Haidy, Thanks for the kind words. Your topic is a rather specific, and I’m afraid I’m not experienced with medical discourses. What you could try, is to check the back issues of journals like ‘Discourse and Society’ or ‘Discourse and Communication’ to see if anyone else has worked on a topic like yours – their list of references would make for a good point to search further. Similarly, I would check the top journals in health science and take a look at any papers that take a discourse-analysis approach (this is not my field, so I can’t tell you which journals would fit the bill, but I recall colleagues in the UK deploying discourse analysis in health-related research). More generally, if you haven’t already checked Foucault’s work on biopolitics, you might find it useful to do so for your project. He mostly writes about mental health discourse, but his work on ‘managing the self’ may have implications on what you are studying. Hope this helps! All the best Florian

Dear Schneider, I am really anxious because am supposed to write my proposal as soon as possible and cannot find the right title and features to discuss. I decided to work on analyzing political cartoons , but I do not know what are the linguistic things that I could work on. I want for example to see how phonemes can help in understanding the message in political cartoons. For exampl, changing /f/ into/v/ in a word would suggest another message. something else I’d like to take your advice to see whether I can make a questionaire toevaluate the reader understanding of the message to see whether the phonological level might enhance the reader’s understanding. I mean how effective the phonological or segmental level? And could this be considered as a contribution filling the research gap in the field. Pleas, could you advice me? Thank you, Lareen

Dear Lareen, This sounds like an interesting project, but it’s a bit outside my own area of expertise. I myself am not a linguist, so I have not studied how phonemes change meanings etc. Personally, if I were to study a visual medium such as comics, I’d probably choose a methodology that focuses on visuality (I’ve written an introduction to that sort of research here: http://www.politicseastasia.com/studying/an-introduction-to-visual-communication-analysis/ , though there are more specific methodologies for comics that might be helpful). You might find Roland Barthes’ article on the rhetoric of the image interesting, at least as far as the interaction between words and visual elements goes. As for your own question about phonemes and their effects, what you propose sounds highly interesting, though you’d have to read up carefully on how to ‘test’ your materials with a target audience. You could, for instance, take a comic page and then replace the words so that you get two different versions. If you then work with an experimental and a control group, then you could show whether readers later respond differently to specific questions about meanings and associations. It helps to already have experience with experimental design. This can be quite delicate and complicated work. I don’t want to discourage you, but you should check with your supervisor to see what is feasible. I would probably advise my students to stick to a manageable corpus of primary materials and to conduct a detailed analysis on those sources, particularly at the MA level. This, of course, provided that the sources actually promise to showcase phoneme differences in a way that can answer your question. Best Florian

Dear Florian, Thank you for your advice. there something important to tell you that my thesis would be in linguistics so that am not sure whether the interaction between words and visual elements would be related to the same field. Does this put my thesis far away from linguistics? something else could I take two sources of the data one from political cartoons and the other from news and see how the linguistic features of both can contribute to the massage? Thank you,

Dear Florian, I’m writing my MA dissertation in IR at the moment and using critical discourse analysis. However I’m having a bit of issue with how to structure my analysis, I think I might have a bit too much material. I’m examining speeches by Iran made in the UNGA, and examining perception of masculinity discourses, contrasting Iranian masculinity discourse in these speeches to how they are perceived through a Western masculinity discourse (I.e. the difference in how something reads as masculine in one but feminine in the other) I have atm 20 speeches, while they are not long it’s quite a mouthful anyway. I’ve read your replies earlier about having a lot of material, but wondering if you have any suggestions for me? grateful for any replies

sincerely Isabelle

Dear Isabelle, 20 speeches does indeed sound like quite a bit of material, but it depends on how detailed your analysis is. For an MA thesis, you might be able to use all of them. I would start by either producing a quantitative overview of the most frequently used words, or I would code the speeches by sections or paragraphs for recurring themes. If you then home in on specific issues, you might not need to analyze everything in every speech: a couple of representative sentences or phrases from each speech might be enough to make your case. Every research project has to make choices about what to include and what to exclude from the study. The trick is to justify these choices well and in a convincing way. You know your materials best, so you need to ask yourself what is or isn’t worth a lengthy treatment in your thesis. Hope this is helpful. Good luck with the project! Best Florian

Good job Mr. Schneider,

Please, I would appreciate it if you can make little input in your own opinion on this topic: ‘Understanding Media Content in the process of Critical Discourse.’

This is a complicated topic, and I’m not sure I can give you any simple input on it. I would suggest looking at the various contributions in the book I recommended above, for instance to Lareen: ‘ Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences ‘. It covers CD from the angle of various kinds of media types and media contents.

Dear Sir, I manage to work on discourse analysis on Tv shows, but not sure what to do exactly?Can I seek advice? Regards!

Dear Sara, It depends whether you are planning to do an entirely linguistic analysis, in which case you would have to transcribe what is said and then conduct the kind of work steps described above on that transcript. Personally, I find it fruitful to ask how discourse works in multiple ‘modes’, so not just through language but also through images, sounds, and the arrangement of people and things in space. If you are interested in those sort of questions, take a look at my blog post on visual communication analysis for some ideas. You might find useful inspiration there. I can also recommend the Handbook of Visual Analysis by van Leeuwen and Jewitt. All the best Florian

Dear sir, Thank you, yes I’d like to make a linguistic analysis. Could I add other modes as a linguistic analysis?

Dear Sara, If you are primarily interested in linguistics, then trying to also conduct an analysis of communication in other modes may be too much work. I’d probably advise you to simply work with the transcripts, and to add a footnote to point out that there are of course additional non-verbal dimensions to the discourse, but that you are bracketing them in your study. That said, you should check with your supervisor. After all, he or she will have to approve your efforts in the end, so they should be aware of the choice you’re planning to make. Best Florian

Dear sir, wow!! thanks

No worries. Happy to help. :)

Dear Sir, I am really confused between the difference between linguistic vs. non-linguistic features of language and verbal vs. non-verbl communication. I tried to google them. in one study i found that linguistic features are metaphors, nominals, verb phrase,etc and the non-linguistic features are color, image,etc. The proble is that i cannot find these on google . So, how could I put thses types as bases for my study? Could you help, please?

Hi Sara, The thing with linguistic/verbal communication is that anything that qualifies as language is ‘linguistic’ (whether written or spoken). ‘Verbal’ is anything that a human being utters – so words (which are linguistic) but also sounds like coughs or sighs (non-linguistic – bus still verbal!). Non-verbal communication mostly refers to things like visual communication, including body-language during a conversation (note, however, that verbal communication is often transcribed into writing to reproduce it in research, in which case the transcription method uses special signs to mark the non-linguistic verbal features like intonation, pauses, emphases, etc.). So you can use the terms verbal/linguist and non-verbal/non-linguistic to narrow down what part of the communication-process you are interested in, and you can use a transcription method that then fits your needs. Best Florian

Hi Florian Your article is of a great help indeed! I am striving with my dissertation.I am working on statements and instructions written in different hospitals.I want to use CDA.I have found Fairclough’s suitable as it provides basic framework from linguistic point of view.I need your help.I want to ask can I mix other analytical tools in Fairclough’s Model?? I want to use Van Leeuwen’s social actor presentation at level of text analysis(few features of it) and Carvalho’s Ideological standpoint and surface description of text.Can I do that??? waiting for your prompt response.

Absolutely. I think it is a good idea to combine different methods and conceptual frameworks in order to answer the questions you have. After all, what are the odds that one specific research approach will fit your project perfectly? It seems only prudent to adapt that approach to suite your needs. You’ll of course have to justify the choices that you make in this regard, but I see no problem with bringing together the work of different authors.

Thank You :) You are a great help!

Hello Florian, I’m using Positivism as lens to analyse some climate change articles. Will you call this discourse analysis and can I use your suggested tools/approach?

Hi Joseph, interesting topic, but I’m a bit confused about what you mean by ‘positivism’. Positivism is usually a broader epistemological framework (so: a set of ideas related to how we can know things about the world around us). Its major claim is that we can make statements about reality and then check them with scientific methods to verify whether they are true. Positivism is all about explaining the world, and as such it contrasts with other frameworks, like hermeneutics (which is about understanding the world) or critical theory (which is about judging the world). Discourse analysis is a research method, and as such you can use it in a positivist way, but it can also be used in a hermeneutical or critical way. It depends what you do with it. So the short answer is: yes, you can formulate hypotheses and then test them, using discourse analysis. Not sure whether this is what you were planning to do, but if it is, you can deploy the tools I’ve outlined above. Hope this helps.

I think that discourse analysis may help me demonstrate how language is used to distinguish between insiders and outsiders within the discipline of archaeology. I am particularly interested in how the use of language differs between amateur and professional archaeologists in conversation, analysis of material culture, and publications. Finally, I want to explore how the professionalization of archaeology within the academy has entrenched this divide through language, especially the creation of specific terms and types of discourse–practical versus theoretical. Are you aware of anyone using discourse analysis in this manner?

Hi Dana, This sounds like a fantastic topic. I am not aware of anyone looking at archaeology in this way, though that does not mean it hasn’t been done at all. It might be worth checking the history of science to see if this has been part of their focus at all. In terms of discourse theory, your ideas are very close to the conceptual arguments that Foucault makes (and he has looked at various sciences to explore precisely such questions). You may have already looked at his work. In a practical sense, much of what you describe is indeed the focus of discourse analysis, and you might find Paul Chilton interesting here. He discusses communication strategies in detail, and I recall this also includes how in-groups and out-groups are constructed through language. Let me know what you find! This is very exciting.

Hi Dear, Actually, I am working on analyzing caricature am not sure which theory I can apply to my analysis. I want to analyze the rhetorical devices used so which theory would suit that and what title could I give to my project? tnx

Hi, Have you looked at research in visual analysis ? It’s possible that you’ll also find van Leeuwen’s work on social semiotics useful. You could also check what theories about humor have to say about caricatures more generally. The work by John Morreall is very good in this regard, and the edited volume he brought out on that topic is a good introduction.

Hi, I wanted to ask your suggestion for discourse analysis method in a research on ethnocide in specific region which involves the future role of the youths. Which specific areas should I be most careful about and what could be the procedure?

Thanks in advance

This is a difficult question. I’m not sure what you mean by the future role of the youths. Overall, your project will depend on your source materials and what you hope to find out. If you are planning to explore language practices, I’d check how protagonists and antagonists are established through communication, and what metaphors or analogies get used.

Hello! Thank you very much for such a useful post! I am conducting currently a research for my MA thesis about the graffiti protest language in the central Athens during the crisis. I have a satisfactory data corpus of 1500 pictures and also I have conducted 8 interviews with the graffiti protest artists. I am applying visual semiotics and multimodal discourse analysis in my paper. Could you give me some tipps?

Hi George, This sounds like a fantastic project, and you clearly already have the materials and your approach sorted out. I’m not sure how I can still help at this point: I would have also recommended a visual semiotics approach. If you haven’t done so already, take a look at my post here on this website on visual communication analysis – I suspect, judging by what you write, that it will be too basic for you at this stage, though. The only advice I have is to not try and do too much. This sounds like a lot of material for an MA thesis, so you will have to carefully narrow done what your analysis will actually focus on. Other than that, this sounds very promising. Let me know how it turns out!

Hello Florian,

Thank you for your kind words! I know that the material that I have already collected, including my photographic corpus and the interview data, are quite a lot for an MA thesis. That’s why I sorted my data out in distinct thematic coding categories considering their thematic frequency and then, I decided to analyze indicatively some instances of each category. The point is that I have applied the visual semiotic approach and I tried to connect it with the multimodal approach, as it is introduced by Kress & Van Leeuwen (Grammar of Visual Design). Do you think that it is a good way to approach the graffiti language? Also, I saw in your post you recommended to me that the main think that I should do is to include the part “Questions to ask of an image.” I realize that I have already done it.

Thanks, George

Hi George, I normally recommend Kress & van Leeuwen for studies like this, so you are clearly working in a good direction. What you describe in terms of sorting the materials also sounds very sensible, so it looks like you’ll have a good set of ‘data’ that you can justify using in the end. In short: it sounds like you are all set to dig into your materials and write this all up. I’m sure this will be great. Best Florian

Thank you very much Florian! I will let you know if anything makes me confused.

Best, George

dear SIR, I managed to combine an analysis on both the use of acronyms and visual image since I saw works on particles and images…Could that be!!!

Hi Sara, I’m not entirely sure what you mean – do you mean that there’s already been research on a topic that is similar to yours? Because that would be a good sign. It would indeed seem plausible that other scholars would look at how specific rhetorical devices or grammatical elements work in conjuncture with images. If you find work like that, I would recommend following its example. Best Florian

Thank you for this very informative post! I am currently writing my BA dissertation on left-wing terrorism in the 1970s and early 80s in Italy and France, focusing on two specific organisations (e.i Red Brigades and Action Directe) and I have set as my main objective for this paper to investigate into the internal factors, which could help explain these organisations’ escalating use of political violence over time.

As I understand that a discourse analysis can allow one to understand how “specific actors construct an argument, and how this argument fits into wider social practices” and also can demonstrate “what kind of statements actors try to establish as self-evident and true”, I was thinking that I might be able to use such method to analyse carefully selected communiques and theoretical reflections written and published by the Red Brigades and Action Directe organisations to analyse how the themes, structure and type of language contained in such textual productions changed over time and how specific statements might have impacted wider social practices, which in this case, given the type of subculture that clandestine organisations create for themselves, would refer to the impact the framing of these texts had on the organisation’s mentality, on its members’ approach to the use of violence and on their vision of the enemy.

If you can, I would greatly appreciate if you could tell me whether or not you think that would be a feasible approach for my dissertation. Thank you in advance!

Hi Clemence, This sounds like a very cool project, but also one that is quite ambitious. You’ll have to be careful not to do too much. I could easily see this topic working out at the level of an MA or even a PhD. Make sure to check with your supervisor what is feasible and what is expected of you by your institute. For instance, I love the idea of tracking changes over time, but this can be very labour-intensive work. You’ll have to present a rationale for drawing up your time-line, you’ll have to justify which moments in time you will study, and then you’ll have to go over quite a bit of text, comparatively, to make your case. If you think the topic easily lends itself to something like this (e.g. if there has been good work on ‘periods’ of activity that you can easily use for your own study), then by all means: go ahead and try your hand at such a comparison. Personally, I would probably advise my own BA students to establish what the situation was like at a specific point in time, particularly if they are looking at more than one source (not to mention: different languages). You could still compare, for instance between two specific organizations in France and Italy, respectively, but to then _also_ compare over time might end up being too much work. That said, what you have outlined here sounds very promising, particularly the idea of studying the discourse on violence and/or on who the antagonists are. Discourse analysis should be a great tool for this sort of thing. I wish you much success with this project, and of course: have fun! Best Florian

Dear, what I meant is that there are scholars in linguistics who worked on a pragmatic analysis on the phrasal verbs in cartoons. what I would like to look into is Abbreviations or acronyms functions in image to see how the message is built by both or the attiudes of the one who made it,,,would it sound as a good ideas?

Ah, I see. I’m not a linguist myself, so you’ll have to talk to your supervisor to be sure, but what you describe sounds perfectly plausible to me. Best – F

hi Florian, I am doing my MA research on a Discourse analysis of newspaper editorials on the Charlie Hebdo attack, using the US, Uk, Middle East and African newspaper editorials.(a total of 12 papers in all; 3 grom each region). Please can you give me your opinion on how to apply DA to such a topic?

Hi Chris, this sounds like a very promising project, and you have a manageable set of materials, which is good. What I would do, is first code the materials (step 4 above) and then see how much of step 8 might help you in your analysis. Twelve articles isn’t too much, so you should be able to code each sentence, or at least each paragraph, and then go into the text to find out what language each publication uses to frame the topic. I would in particular check who the ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ in the stories are, and what statements are presented as self-evident. Also, I would check how different topics get connected in the texts, e.g. migration, religion, violence, freedom of speech, etc. If you are then able to connect the different discursive practices back to the institutional background of each publication, that would be a very interest thesis. But do make sure to check with your supervisor where he or she would like your focus to lie on this. At any rate, hope this helps!

So glad I found this! you’re a natural at this stuff! I am attempting a discourse analysis of medical text (chapters from text books) and published clinical guidelines to understand how childhood is constructed in these texts. ofcourse I would be using latest editions and updated guidelines. So in this case, do I also go about understanding for example the backgrounds of the authors of the text book? (in this case practicing clinicians/academics)? What else would you recommend in terms of establishing the context? Also, when the researcher arrives with an “agenda” , in this case I have apriori assumptions about the discourse I will find which is basically a discourse that is not aligned with the new sociology of childhood. How does this affect my analysis.

Thank you Florian!

Well, how strongly you want to explore the institutional background of your texts (including the autobiographical details of the authors) depends a bit on your specific research interests and questions, as well as on how much time you have for your project. It seems to me that you are mostly interested in the texts themselves, in which case it might be asking to much to try and interview the authors or track down their CVs to infer how their life stories affected what they write. I would take a brief look at the institutional settings in which they work and publish, and I would keep an eye out for moments where this might be reflected in the materials, but I would otherwise concentrate on the texts themselves. As for your own agenda, every researcher has expectations as to what they will find or not, so you could simply make these expectations explicit at the outset. You could even phrase your expectations as a hypothesis. What is important, however, is that you actively look for examples from your data that runs contrary to your expectations. If you can convincingly show that you have done so, then arriving at a conclusion that is in line with your expectations does not disqualify your work. Just try to be honest about your own views and fair/balanced in how you assess your materials.

Dear Florian!

I tried to read all the questions, but in the end there were far too many, so please forgive me if this question was already put. I read Reiner Keller, Foucault and (long time ago) Jäger, but I felt that many texts were not very explicit on what practical work steps they would recommend in order to analyze a certain text. Furthermore I found it very hard to distinguish discourse analysis from critical discourse analysis, even tho Keller claims that the sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD) differs from CDA. Furthermore your way of conducting CDA reminds me of Mayrings’ qualitative content analysis. So I was wondering if you could emphasize the differences between CDA, DA, SKAD and qualitative content analysis. Thank you for your enlightening article! I’m looking forward to hearing from you! Kind regards from Austria,

Dear Isabelle, You are right to be frustrated: the distinctions between different DA approaches are often not clear, and most authors indeed don’t provide practical advice for students. That has in part been my motivation for putting together this post. As for the difference between various kinds of discourse analysis, I’ll try to keep it short – the topic would deserve a full blog post in its own right. First off, I am not very familiar with SKAD, so I can’t comment on Keller’s work here. I find it useful to see ‘discourse analysis’ as a broad category of approaches to communication, each of which concerns itself with the socio-psychological dimensions of communication practices. All discourse analysis approaches own something or other to linguistics, but the difference there is that discourse analysis is interested primarily in semantics and their social contexts and implications rather than in phonetics, phonology, or morphology. Within discourse analysis, you then get a sizable range of different approaches, some of which focus on specific realms of communication (e.g. political discourse analysis), others drawing from specific theoretical frameworks (e.g. post-Marxist approaches). CDA is one such discourse analysis approach, and it distinguishes itself by looking primarily at how language (and communication) interacts with ideology. In this, CDA stands in the tradition of the Frankfurt School and its Critical Theory. The aim in CDA (at least originally) is to unmask power relations and explore how dominance and resistance work through language. I usually tell students to think of any ‘science’ (that is: Wissenschaft) in the way that Habermas does: as either interested in explaining something (analytical), understanding what something means (hermeneutics), or evaluating and judging something (critical). In that sense, there are discourse analyses that are more analytical, for instance those that applying more formal approaches from socio-linguistics to establish how language works in a particular text. I myself was originally trained more in an arts and humanities context, meaning that hermeneutics have played a big role in how I make sense of communication analysis, and this is probably why you recognize the connection to Mayring, whose hermeneutic coding model I use extensively. CDA falls in the third category, which is probably why Keller sets himself and his work apart from such approaches. I imagine he is more interested in analytical DA than in critical DA (but you would have to ask him). In any case, no approach falls squarely only in one category (analytical, hermeneutic, critical), and most authors will position themselves between these categories. Nevertheless, the focus can help us understand what the intentions and the methods of a specific approach are. So, in short, all approaches to discourse analysis have a lot in common, particularly when it comes to the assumption that language interacts with social practices, and that we can study communication to understand how worldviews are reflected in and constituted through communication practices. They differ, however, in their emphasis of analytical, hermeneutic, and critical elements, with CDA traditionally being more in the critical theory corner than other approaches. The story of course gets even more complicated when you look at the individual authors and their work (not all CDA is the same, for instance), but I hope this very brief explanation helps. As you can probably tell, I am also perpetually struggling to make sense of DA and of who is arguing what in the field… All the best Florian

Thank you very much for putting it in a nutshell! I admire your ability to get to the heart of the problem! Thank you for your help! It helped me a lot!

Kind regards from Vienna, Isabelle

I’m doing a phd research on political discourse, I’d like to get the trail of Nvivo, but couldn’t, the website is always unaccessible.

Can u pleaaaaaaaaase help

Hi Sara, I’m not entirely sure what you mean – are you trying to get the 14-day trial software and the website is down? I myself don’t work for QSR, so I can’t help you there. You could try their forum ( http://forums.qsrinternational.com/ ) or their support department ( http://www.qsrinternational.com/Support/Contact-Support ), or you could contact your university department and see if they can acquire NVivo for you (…most universities have a subscription, so you’d have to talk to your uni’s IT people or the library personal to see how you can get access – that might be the best way to test the software). Sorry to not be of more help.

Hi, i am writing a paper on an aspect of discourse in social life to demonstrate how persuasive power is conveyed through language.

I need to define a topic which is suitable for me to do the paper. And i found two topic that i am interested in. First one would be “The influence of Discourse on Animal Industries”, the second one would be “The influence of Discourse on animal adoption”.

I am so confusing about which topic is better for my paper. Because i am afraid of it is not clear enough to express the message and there is a limitation on adoption that a few discourse theories and concepts could talk about it.

Hi Cherrie, I’m not sure I can help you, since I don’t know enough about these two topics, or what the limitations are that you are confronted with. Maybe a more general comment will help: I would always try to find a case that has a good range of data and that promises to answer the question you have. The question of how ‘power is conveyed through language’ is very general, so you’ll have to narrow that down and make it a question specifically about animal discourses. Once you’ve clarified for yourself what you hope to explore, you’ll (hopefully) be able to establish which of the two topics is more feasible. This may not have to mean that other authors have written a lot about the subject (it would in fact be great research if you were the first to examine a topic like that in this way), but you do need to have access to a good body of texts that you can then analyse. You know the two topics better than I do, so ask yourself: which lends itself better to explore how different actors use their institutional power to shape the discourse on animals? Hope this is helpful. Good luck with the project! Best Florian

Thank you so much for this very useful article. It does help me a lot to understand what the DA is.

Best regards, Eni

Glad you found this useful. Thanks for the positive feedback!

Dear Florian, I need an approach that is suitable besides the semiotics for the analysis of the linguistic and visual modes of cartoons. Could you help please?

Dear Sara, I’m not an expert on other approaches to comics, but you could take a look at some of the contributions in Jaqueline Berndt’s edited book ‘Comics Worlds and the World of Comics: Towards Scholarship on a Global Scale’ ( http://bit.ly/1OrFdyR ). There should be a lot of inspiration in there that could help you.

Hello Florian! Thank you very much for the inspiring articles and youtube videos. I will soon start writing my dissertation, but I am somehow struggling in finding a sharp distinction between discourse and narrative analysis. Especially since I tend not to interpret the latter according to Somers and Gibson’s (1994) distinction between ontological/public narratives – so both the stories we tell ourselves about who we are and the ones we share with others. Thus, wonder whether for example an interview where the interviewed says something about his/her past and the way he/she perceives him/herself as part of a community, can be regarded as a narrative and at the same time – focusing on the words used and the implications that these words carry – as suggesting a specific discourse. Hope you can somehow clarify the distinction :)

Thank you very much!

Hi Valeria, I think you have already described correctly what the difference (but also the connection) between narrative and discourse is. I have not worked with Somers and Gibson’s framework, but what you outline makes a lot of sense to me. In my understanding, discourse constructs knowledge through language (or more broadly: through communication), and it consequently underlies our narratives. It is a resource we draw upon as we narrate. Such a view makes it possible to analyse the discursive strategies that govern specific narratives, that is the language choices and communicative moves that subjects make in order to make their narratives ‘work’ (both within certain social contexts and psychologically for themselves). Depending on how you decide to differentiate between discourse and narrative, you should be able to justify in a dissertation why you are focusing your analysis on one rather than the other, or when and why you plan to analyze both of these dimensions. I hope this helps. Let me know how your project goes. All the best Florian

Thanks a lot Florian! I also have the distinction as well as connection between the two concepts much clearer in my mind now. Will keep checking the website for interesting updates :)

All the best

My name is Lisa and I’m a Belgian masterstudent in translation. I’m doing my dissertation about the translation of the same information for different newspapers. I’m going to evaluate the influence of a different translation (or representation) on the broader image of a certain article on a newstopic. Comparing French and Belgian newspapers, always going back to the source (the press agencies).

I thought discourse analysis would be a good method to study this but I find so much information that I’m starting to doubt. I think I could use a lot of steps of your toolbox but I’m not sure how I could link this to the translation.

Could you maybe help me/explain?

Hi Lisa, It sounds to me that what you are working on is mostly a case of intertextuality – of source materials getting referenced or re-used in other contexts. Discourse analysis is also interested in intertextuality, but as a method it looks at many more issues as well: word groups, use of evidentiality, use of passive phrases, etc. It doesn’t seem that you’ll need these other angles in your analysis. You could still draw from discourse theory, if you find the general conceptual framework interest: the idea that social reality is constructed to no small degree through communication. That said, I would probably stick to the frameworks you’ve been using in translation studies, and would then make it explicit that you are interested in this particular case of intertextual translation. Just a thought. At the end of the day, I would always advise that you discuss this with your supervisors, since they will be the ones grading your effort. Good luck with the thesis! Florian

I’m so pressured. We are supposed to write a discourse paper for 5 theories of developmental psychology namely, Piaget’s, Erikson’s, Levinson, Freud and Bronfenbenners.

We were given 2 day ( TWO DAYS!) to write a discourse paper of each plus another discourse paper combining all of the theories.

I’m still new to this thing. I don’t even know what Discourse paper is until I searched it online.

Please help me. How do I do it in a beginner’s eye view? This seems so complicated, I don’t know if this is what our professor meant with Discourse paper….she did not further elaborate it, she just told us that it is an argument and that we should search more online.

this is driving me crazy.

Hi Jen, This is indeed a tough one. I’m not sure how to help – it seems like the assignment is missing important information. Frankly, I can’t imagine your professor has an actual ‘discourse analysis’ in mind for a paper like this. Such an analysis would mean that you go over the works of these authors in detail and try to isolate how they wrote about different issues, what concepts they developed, which assumptions informed their work, and so on. I can’t imagine anyone doing that sort of work within two days. She probably has a very specific idea of what a ‘discourse paper’ is, but without her elaborating on this, it’s impossible to be sure. What I would do is outline what the major theoretical arguments are that the four psychologists make in the sources that you have at your disposal. I would make it clear that you are interested in their ‘discursive position’, that is their position within broader debates and frameworks of understanding that constitute developmental psychology. I would also point out that you are not going to be able to conduct a full-scale, detailed discourse analysis (maybe mention what kind of linguistic dimensions such an analysis would examine, and provide a reference or two – see this post for more info), but that future research could take such an angle to follow up on what you are writing in your paper (e.g. look at a particular concept that all these authors use and then explore how exactly they frame that concept in their language practices). This will all, by necessity, be rather rudimentary, and will resemble a literature review much more than a discourse analysis. Again, I hesitate a bit to give you concrete advice, since I simply don’t know what the basis for your grading will be. It’s entirely possible that doing what I just outlined is precisely _not_ what your professor has in mind. I know this doesn’t help you, but rest assured I find this assignment as confusing as you do. Are you sure your instructor did not leave more information for you, e.g. in the course description or in any supporting materials? I would check with my fellow students and see what they took away from the assignment, just to be sure. I’ll keep my fingers crossed that you are able to put something together that will get you your credits. Sorry to hear this is such a drag. Developmental psychology is amazingly interesting. I hope this experience doesn’t discourage you from following this subject. Best Florian

Thanks for answering. Yep, there were no other instructions. Just that, we need to write a discourse paper about these theories…anyways, thank you so much for answering and even though you think you didn’t help at all, I was actually beginning to see what a discourse paper is. I would put your advice into heart. :)

Glad to hear I could help. Good luck with the assignment! I’ll keep my fingers crossed that it goes well.

Hi. Am a Kenyan P.h.D student. Am encouraged by the replies that you have given. I would want to do a CDA of interaction in a special needs class focussing on repair, turn-taking and word selection. Do you think it’s viable? How should I go about it? Should it take a qualitative or quantitative approach? Is it enough or too limiting for P.h.D level? Many questions but I would appreciate any help I can get. Merry Christmas!

Hi Grace, My apologies for only responding now, but as you may have already guessed, I was away over Christmas and New Year’s. What you propose sounds like a great study. You’ll of course have to check with your supervisor, but this strikes me as an eminently feasible PhD project. It will depend a bit on the number of research subjects you’ll be monitoring, as well as the time you’ll spend with them, but overall this seems doable. Methodologically, I would probably aim for a qualitative approach, which could combine participant observation, focus group sessions, and individual interviews. I’m not a health researcher myself, but do check the literature from professionals in that field. Discourse analysis is a common methodology in that area, so you should be able to find interesting templates for what others have done in similar situations. Good luck with the project! Best Florian

hi. would you please tell me how Discourse Analysis is related to TEFL(teaching english as a ….)? so many thanks in advance

Hi there, I’m not sure I’ve understood your question. Discourse analysis is mainly a research tool for studying how communication processes work and how they relate to social and political processes. In that sense, one could conduct a discourse analysis of a specific TEFL programme works, for instance by recording teaching sessions and then analyzing the communication patters in the interactions. I’m not sure whether that is what you have in mind? Discourse analysis can also be useful to create fair communication environments, for instance by reminding participants in a debate of their discourse moves and urging them to not make manipulative rhetorical statements. I could imagine a similar approach being applied to pedagogical situations, but that would be more a matter of practice than of analysis.

For a paper I am currently writing I use discourse analysis to examine both the Truman doctrine and the Bush doctrine (particulary the speech he gave in a joint session of congres). In step 8 you explain ‘word groups’, but I find it hard to explain how the dimplomatic/miltairy language is of importance. From a US president you would expect this kind of vocabulary, so are these word groups relevant in this case? Thank you for this clear and helpful toolbox!

Hi there, Interesting topic, and you’ll of course have to decide for yourself whether work step 8 is useful in this regard, but I could imagine it still might be. The main issue is not whether the two doctrines use military language to describe military actions (that might indeed not be extremely interesting), but to check what language they use on certain subjects. For instance, you might find that military language gets deployed to describe things that are not at all military in nature, for instance economics. Or maybe military metaphors and such get used only with regards to certain actors in international relations, but not with regards to others. Or you might find a completely different set of words used to describe military engagements, for instance highly technical jargon or a language that describes international relations in terms of a game. I would also try to find out when and where certain choices of vocabulary tend to meet your expectations, that is: when do they seem ‘unsurprising’ and why? That, in itself, is a strategic choice on the part of the policy writers: making the language seem natural or appropriate. But how exactly do the writers manage to get this sentiment across? This might be worth asking as well. Hope this helps!

Hello Florian, I’m Betty from Nigeria. Thanks for your article. It’s insightful and helpful. I’m currently working on a PhD thesis. My tentative theoretical framework is a combination of pragmatics and critical discourse analysis while my text of study comprises parables in the New Testament Gospels of the Bible. Please what would you suggest as an effective thesis topic and what argument would effectively communicte the essence of the study. Thanks.

Hi Betty, I’m sadly quite ill-informed about the state-of-the-field in religious studies, which is probably an area of literature your work would need to connect with. So, in terms of effective topic and research question, I would let the concerns and debates in the relevant secondary literature guide my choice. From a discourse analysis perspective, I could imagine two lines of questions that might be interesting, though you will of course have to decide which of these are useful to you. The first is how the original biblical text has been translated into other languages and into more modern versions. This is more of a translation-studies question, but it ties in with discourse theory, since the concepts and ideas in the Gospels are shaped by language choices. Another question would be how the Gospel texts are used, inter-textually, in other media or at other levels of discourse. For instance, do politicians or news media or artists use/quote the New Testament in certain contexts, and if so: how do they strategically use text passages to make their point? The trick for such a topic would be to narrow your materials down effectively. You’d have to chose a ‘level of discourse’ from a specific time and place, and you’d have to do a little bit of preliminary research to see what would yield interesting cases. These are all issues I’d recommend you discuss with your supervisor(s). Their expertise will likely guide your topical focus as well, and they may have completely different questions when it comes to biblical sources. Nevertheless, I hope these relatively random thoughts are still helpful. Good luck with the project! Best – F

Hello Florian, Thank you for your well-informed exposition in this article. I learned a lot from it. Am a PhD candidate in Applied linguistics, from Cameroon, studying in Bangkok and intending to research on a linguistic discourse analysis of language use in political interviews in Cameroon. I intend looking at political interviews in newspapers to be able to know how politicians use language eg to avoid questions. Could analyzing the data using political rhetoric, (im)politeness strategies and propaganda language paradigms a good choice for a research of this kind? What will you advise to be the theoretical framework for this study and what could possibly be the analytical paradigm to adopt in this research?

Thanks for this opportunity as I await your response.

Hi Eric, Glad you liked the post. Sounds like you are working on a very interesting topic. What you outline makes a lot of sense to me. For additional inspiration, you could take a look at Paul Chilton’s book on ‘ Analysing Political Discourse ‘. There’s a lot of useful material in there, for instance on radio interviews, and the book outlines issues like linguistic strategies and performance. I can also recommend the two edited books by Ruth Wodak (you may have seen the links in the comment section above): Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (which includes conceptual pieces by some of the leading people in the field, like Fairclough, van Dijk, Jaeger, van Leeuwen, and Wodak herself) and Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Science (which includes helpful examples of media-specific analyses – I could imagine that chapter 2 on newspaper analysis and chapter 5 on political rhetoric would be interesting for you). I hope these tips help! Good luck with the project.

Hello Florian, Thanks greatly for this significant input and enlightenment on my research project. It has really shape my perspective on the research. Will revert back to you as I move on. Thanks for this unique forum.

Hello! My name is Christina and I am currently carrying out my research for my MA thesis in Linguistics at Lund University.

I am going to apply Discourse Analysis as the main theoretical and methodological framework in order to investigate the Greek action and mind in times of Greek Referendum (July 5 2015) analyzing twitter posts (Twitter case study).

My main uneassiness is about how the Greek people expressed broadly themselves (i.e. political thoughts, actions, inquires) before the day of July 5 (June 25 – July 5) on the one strand, and how they expressed themselves the day after (July 6) via posting.

However, I have some difficulty concerning the methodological pathway that I should follow in order to achieve an objective and intersubjective goal (avoid subjective interpretations).

Any suggestions, comments and advises according to theory/methodology are much appreciated!

Thanks, Christina

Hi Christina, Looking at Twitter discourse on the Greek referendum sounds like a very promising project. I’m not sure how to help regarding your question. Do you mean: how can you assure that your research isn’t informed by your own bias? Personally, I don’t believe that it is possible to do ‘objective’ research; in fact, claiming ‘objectivity’ is itself an ideologically-informed strategic decision. I believe that the most we can aim for is honest, well-balanced, and fair research, meaning that you considered all sides to an issue and that you do not obscure how your personal views shaped your choice of topic, materials, and methods. You’ll have to check with your supervisor as to what they expect (and there are colleagues who do believe research should be ‘objective’), but I would advise you to simply not jump to conclusions about your topic and to take the various voices you are studying seriously, even if they make arguments you strongly disagree with. If you set up clear and transparent work-steps for yourself on how to select tweets and what to look for in them, and if you explain these choices in your thesis, then you can keep yourself honest along the way and limit the degree with which your personal perspective framse the issue. You’ll never be entirely able to remove yourself from the study, though, and I don’t think you should. After all, this is an important topic, and you picked it because it means something to you. You might even add a prefix or a footnote in the introduction that outlines your own personal position, so that your readers (and assessors) know that you are aware of your positionality (this is the sort of thing that ethnographers do as a matter of course). But as I said: you’ll have to clarify with the people who will grade you to what degree your thesis may or may not be informed your own political judgement. I can’t comment on practices in linguistics. At any rate, let me know if I got your question right, or whether I misunderstood. All the best for your project!

Dear Florian! Thank you so much for your reply. I didn’t reply on time because i was examing carefully all the things you wrote. You really helped me with your advices. I will contact you again if i need anything and of course i will keep you posted about how my research is going,

Best Christina

Glad I could help!

Florian, do you have this in a chart?

I’m afraid not. Only the text version, my apologies.

aoa plz tell me any one about discourse analyse how can i complete our priject i have no idea which kind of disciurse i take how can i do it

Hello Dr Florian Schneider Thank you very much for your wonderful site. I am trying to do discourse analysis about the meaning of “food security” in Iran. How it is formed and developed, it is my phd thesis. I am trying to write my proposal and welcome your advice. Thanks /

Hi Sahar, This is a very broad question. I am not sure there’s much I can advise, especially since I am not very familiar with the case. It would probably be wise to pick a time-frame, an event, or something similar to narrow your scope. You’d have to do this based on your own understanding of the issue and Iran’s political history. Next, you’d have to decide what exactly you want your research question to be, ideally phrased in a way that you can then explore empirically (e.g. ‘what discourses do different Iranian government agencies draw from in their approach to food security’, or ‘how do different media outlets in Iran portray food security in their discourse’, or something like that). Based on that, you should then figure out what sources to use (news media? government reports? will the sources be printed, or will they include visual elements? Will they be digital?). This should then inform how you build a set of sources, and what work-steps you later apply to them (e.g. some of the work-steps I have outlined above). Sorry for being rather vague and general, but I hope this helps you get the topic started.

Thanks for your advice

Hi Florian, Thanks for sharing your thoughts and expertise here. They have been really helpful and I have really learned from the questions posted and your replies to them.

Thanks Shawn, that’s very kind. :)

I am a Social Work PhD student analyzing a political document for an assignment in class. I am basically trying to examine how the text constructs certain bodies (public housing residents). Would focusing only on linguistic and rhetorical mechanisms (# 8) be sufficient enough to produce a good enough analysis? You mention that it is useful to focus on particular aspects of discourse analysis when doing projects other than theses and dissertations. The main objective of my project is to highlight the mechanisms used to construct [representations of] public housing residents.

Thanks in advance,

Hi Rachel, I think the answer to your question depends somewhat on the source materials you are using, and on the precise nature of the assignment. For a short assignment, I would indeed focus on one aspect that you think will yield the most interesting results, or I would start with a brief survey of the material and then ‘zoom in’ on a specific discursive mechanism or type of statement. If you are working with (a small number of) textual sources, then a single work-step might indeed suffice, as long as you explain your choice and point out what other aspects might be worth analysing in follow-up studies. Which linguistic features then provide the most interesting angle will very much depend on the kind of text you are using. In speeches and carefully crafted policy documents, rhetorical figures might be the most useful thing to look for. In most cases, a look at the different actors, at passive phrases, and at evidentiality markers should probably get you started.

Dear Dr. Florian,

I ran across your posts on how to do a discourse analysis and wish that I could have seen them much earlier. :) Thank you very much for your clear and concise explanation on discourse analysis. Your posts are very helpful and inspire me to further examine the issue. I am doing PhD in Japan on sustainability science, and working on a research on a transition to low-carbon energy future. My research question is how the Oil and Gas companies legitimize their green investment in renewable energy. Due to my background in political science, I have applied discourse analysis on the business strategies. As for as I am concerned, the discourse analysis has not been employed much in the study of corporate actors’ decision making, but more on politicians’ statements or government policy. In so doing, I collected all annual reports of targeted Oil and Gas companies which are available in their websites, and analyzed them to find out which discourses on green energy investment have been repeated the most. The findings are quite interesting. They are not only revealing conventional discourses such as national energy security and environmental friendly products promotion but also a group of novel discourses which are exclusively found in the case of O&G industry, such as the risk of crude oil volatility. Anyway, recently I had chance to present the findings to one scholar and received one provoking question that how can we know that the companies really did investment according to discourses as they wrote in the annual reports given the fact that the text in annual reports may be just Public Relation of the companies. I responded to the scholar by saying that I would conduct semi-structured interview with companies executives to triangulate the text and the talk. However, after been thinking through his question, I then realize that both text and talk can be a PR thing of the companies too, and certainly are discursive. It is like asking which one is more strawberry, between strawberry ice-cream and strawberry jam. So may I ask your opinion on the issue? Do you think it is feasible theory-wise to say that discourses from the talk is more ‘true’ than the discourse in written text or vice versa?

Thank you very much. Best regards, Waen

Dear Waen, Thanks for the kind words. I’m happy to hear you found these articles useful. The question you pose is indeed difficult to answer. My short response would be that there is nothing intrinsic to speech or text that makes either ‘more’ legitimate or honest or ‘real’ than the other. That said, it is important to note that different sources have different functions, and that they consequently present different kinds of positions (PR is not the same as an internal company report, for instance). The context matters, though establishing that context would have to rely on other kinds of research like a good literature review, online queries, etc. Discourse analysis itself can never fully establish what specific intentions are or what the people engaged in discourse are actually thinking. From a strict discourse-theoretical perspective, these intentions and thoughts do not really matter. All that matters is how different agents shape the ‘truths’ of the topic. From that perspective, the documents you are analysing aren’t interesting because they tell you what the companies are actually doing. They are interesting because they demonstrate how the companies ‘make sense’ of what they are doing. The focus here is on their conceptual labour and how this discursive work informs conceptions of green energy, production processes, etc. Whether their statements are genuine or ‘just’ PR is secondary. At any rate, if we wanted to establish intentions or deep thoughts about such things, we would have to do so through other research approaches, for example trick questions in surveys, psychological experiments, etc. With these limitations in mind, I have to admit that I do indeed think personal interviews can add information that isn’t just ‘discursive’. For instance, you can use interviews to ‘fact-check’ certain processes and procedures, especially if you have several sources that confirm how specific things work, e.g. in a company. It can also happen that you have personal conversations with informants who give you the non-official story on a specific issue or topic – their speech acts are still types of performances, but some of the information they are using to make those speech acts will nonetheless provide you with an inside perspective on the issue itself. So in that sense, I find interviews a useful way to explore the social practices ‘behind’ the discourse and establish what the factual parameters are that agents then act in. I hope this helps! Good luck with this fascinating PhD project. All the best FS

Thank you very much for your profound answers and suggestion. I feel more confident of what I am doing thanks to your clear explanation on the issue I raised. Also I do agree with your opinion on conducting interviews with key informants of the companies. I may have to finish discourse analysis on annual reports of all targeted companies in three countries before I make a move to ask for interviews. One more question I would like to ask you please. I am wondering what is the next step after we have critical understanding on the discourses employed in the media, or by politicians or even companies. According to my study in sustainability science, we would like to make changes and bring positive impact on unsustainable society. It is to say that we have a political obligation apart from doing a research and shedding light on the issue in question. Regarding this, could you please share some thoughts on the policy implications of the study of discourses in general? I am sorry if my question is out of question in the perspective of the discourse theory…

Thank you very much again. Best regards, Waen

Dear Waen, I personally think that as researchers we do indeed have an ethical obligation to intervene in problematic social practices that we spot through our analyses, for instance by sharing our findings with the broader public in accessible ways. This can of course also include policy advice or collaborations with non-governmental actors. I do have one caveat: as researchers who focus on human societies, we should remain aware that our interventions end up shaping the very thing we study. Sometimes such influences are minor, but in some cases they can develop a life of their own. This can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies, for instance when scholars of a particular theoretical conviction successfully advise governments to behave in specific ways and then view this outcome as proof of the theoretical model that informed their own advice. Think of the influence that realist thinkers had on Cold War politics, which arguably created and reinforced the very ‘balance of power’ that realism also claimed to explain. In my view, the best way to shield against such outcomes is to be transparent and honest in one’s own research, and to clearly declare biases and conflicts of interests in academic publications. I would also advise against making predictions, which I think are very difficult to defend in social research, even though they are frequently demanded by funding bodies. This is where it is important, I believe, to point out to stakeholders that we are doing social research, not physics, and that this changes the degree to which research can predict outcomes, yet without making the research any less valid (after all, the theory of ‘evolution’ is also poor at predicting outcomes, but it’s nevertheless a great tool for explaining how life works…). So that’s my two cents on our responsibility to intervene and on the idea of ‘valorizing’ research in social studies… Best – Florian

[…] How to do a Discourse Analysis. […]

Hi there, I am doing an undergraduate dissertation on looking into whether there is a moral panic surrounding youth gangs in the UK or whether this is a reality. Therefore I am using critical discourse analysis to analyse the language of the british media to uncover how they sensualise and exaggerate the problem. Thank you for your direct and clear explanation of what to include when carrying out this method.

Just wanted to ask how you would explain in words the impact a news article can have that makes them seem more valid if it includes official crime statistics or direct speech from members of authority such as police etc on the issue? Thanks! – Paige

Hi Paige, I’m very sorry that I couldn’t write earlier. It’s the height of the semester here, so I’m swamped a bit. Sounds like you’re working on an interesting project. You’ve probably already moved on over the past two weeks, but just to still answer your question: I would say that using statistics (particularly official ones) is an appeal to factuality, and that such appeals are meant to legitimate the position of the speaker/writer. This of course does not mean that ‘facts’ are the same thing as ‘truths’, but they are resources from which people construct their version of the truth, and they can be powerfully deployed to lend a sense of objectivity to a narrative. Using factual information like statistics can make it seem as though the speaker or writer is neutral on the issue they are discussing, when really neutral positions are themselves socially and communicatively constructed: choosing a particular question to discuss and emphasising specific facts over others is itself a position, after all. I hope this still helps! Good luck with the thesis. Best Florian

Is SPSS okay to use as a tool for discourse analysis?

Hey Paul, If you wanted to do a quantitative analysis of word correlations, you could of course use statistical software like SPSS. I’ve not done any analyses like this with SPSS, but I see no reason why the software couldn’t be re-purposed in this way. That said, I would always recommend also including some sort of qualitative analysis, in which case you’d need additional tools in addition to the statistics.

Hey Florian Schneide I am a university student I am required to do discourse analysis whatever the text is could help me how do it

Hi Khair, That sounds like a somewhat vague assignment. If you are indeed free to choose, then I would recommend that you pick a short online news article that sparked your interest recently, and that you then ‘test’ some of the work steps I have outlined above on that source. That should allow you to explore what a discourse analysis can do.

I have read your articles and responses to people’s queries and I can say that’s a great job you are doing. I am taking my MA-english and linguistics and would like you to suggest some interesting topics for research in discourse analysis or syntax. For discourse,I want to look at tourism. Your help will be appreciated.

Thanks for the kind words, and sorry for only replying now. It’s been a busy week. I’m not a linguist myself, so you’ll have to check with your supervisor what would make a good topic for your project, but if you are interested in tourism, why not analyze a tourism campaign that sparks your interest? I have student who is currently comparing Chinese tourism campaigns in foreign countries, and something similar would surely be a fun project for e.g. British, Australian, or US tourism campaigns. You could explore, for instance, what cultural categories a specific campaign draw up to present the respective country, and how that country then gets framed linguistically. You could also explore how the idea of ‘tourism’ is framed by different campaigns (e.g. what ideas of leisure, cultural interactions, etc. inform the campaigns)? I would normally also look at the visual component of such activities, but again: you’d have to see what is feasible within your programme. So: just a few suggestions, but maybe they’re useful.

thanks for you paper but would u mind giving me help to analyse Donald TRUMP discourse during these US presidential elections

thanks for your paper but would u mind giving me help to analyse Donald TRUMP discourse during these US presidential elections. thanks again

Hi Malik, I think you also asked this in the other thread, so I hope you found the answer I provided there useful. If you didn’t receive that answer, let me know, and I’ll repost here. Best – F

Sorry for the late reply. Have you seen this video ? It’s essentially a discourse analysis on the language that Trump uses. You could build on this by conducting a similar analysis for a specific speech or set of speeches.

Dear Sir, Hello and thanks a lot for sharing with us this information and listening to us patiently . I would like to examine public debate in Iran about” genetically modified organisms” . I am thinking of using Laclau and Mouffe discourse analysis. Could you please give me some advice and help. Thank you

Dear Sahra, This sounds exciting, but as a topic it’s still very broad. Laclau and Mouffe sound promising, as does the topic of genetically modified organisms, but you’ll need to decide in what kind of context you plan to now study this, and also what your precise questions will be. What is it that you are trying to find out? For instance, you could ask what the discourse on such genetic modifications is in policy documents, or in the mainstream media, or in science blogs… once you take a look at some of those sources, you may even want to refine your question further and focus on something within the discourse that is intriguing. Without knowing more about the topic, it’s hard to give good advice, but I would encourage you to sample a couple of sources that interest you, and to then come up with a research question that can lead you further into the topic.

Brilliant! Thank you. I turned this into a sketchnote (kinda like this, but not as fancy http://online.focusky.com/pqnf/ipmj/files/extfiles/drag_2015128103041672.jpg ) in my notebook for fun, but I will definitely be returning to it time and again. Concise but hits on crucial points. Super helpful. ^_^

This is very cool. Thanks for sharing!

Dear Sir Hello again and thank you very much for your encouraging advice. I would like to look at public debate that is reflected in media and also in telegram groups. I am thinking that the debate reflects the political antagonism in the country, but I am not certain how I can formulate it as a research questions. Please let me thank you again for you advice and help

Dear Sahra, You may well be right about such antagonisms. I think there’s two ways you could approach the subject. The first is to identify communities that are likely to have a polarized opinion, and to then contrast what two such antagonistic groups say/write/do. Alternatively, you could pick a specific topic or event that you know has recently been part of public discussions, and you could then look at certain media outlets or political groups to see how they reacted to such a ‘discursive event’. In either case, I’d probably formulate a ‘how’ question; something like ‘how do X an Y contribute to the discourse on genetically modified organisms, in light of the recent case Z’. Maybe something like that would be feasible? You’ll still of course have to carefully justify who you are looking at, which event you picked, etc.

Dear Sir Thank you so much for your kind advice and help.Wish you are my adviser.

Thanks for your kind reply. You are such a priceless resource. Will look at the options given and work towards them.

Respected sir i don’t have words to express my feelings regarding your present page. it reminds me the qualities of the genuine great teachers and you are one of them. May you have the same loves,wishes and feelings from all of students throughout your life.

Thank you Muhammad, That is very kind and really means a lot.

Very useful. Thanks for sharing :)

Sure, no problem! :)

This is excellent! This article has given me a good introduction to discourse analysis to start my dissertation with. Thanks!

Mr Schneider this post is particularly helpful. Thank you for explaining how to go about doing DA so well! I was wondering if the same applies for visual discourse analysis. Even though I have read a lot I still struggle to understand whether visual discourse requires background research so as to better interpret the image. I am thinking of combining visual discourse with visual semiotics. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Hi Vili, Thanks for the encouraging feedback. To answer your question: I think discourse analysis extends seamlessly to visual materials, and I would indeed say semiotics is the way to go. Have you seen my blog post on that subject ? It discusses what additional issues might be important when doing a discourse analysis on materials such as images or videos. In short, I would say that discourse takes place in various ‘modes’ (a term I’m taking from Kress & Van Leeuwen’s work on semiotics and visual analysis), meaning it can take place textually (in written words), acoustically (spoken words, sounds, music), visually (images, movies, gestures, etc.), and possibly other modes as well (taste and smell come to mind). Oftentimes, discourse cuts across various modes simultaneously, and this is where an analysis then has to a) look at each mode to see what happens there, and b) connect the different modes to establish how discursive elements work together. I’ve provided some tools and tips in that other blog post for doing this in practice, e.g. using shot protocols for films. I’ve also pointing out that images of course also have a history, a production background, a reception context, and so on, and that this is where the discipline of iconography comes in very handy. If you want to learn more, I’d recommend checking out the contributions in Van Leeuwen’s edited volume ‘ Handbook of Visual Analysis ‘. Hope this helps!

Dear Dr Schneider, you are very welcome!

Thank you for the reply! If I am not taking up too much of your time I would like to ask you some more specific questions. I have realised that despite having read widely, the work of Kress and Van Leeuwen as you and some advisers at my uni suggest might help me unravel the mystery of visual discourse analysis. At the moment their books are unfortunately borrowed by another student. In the meantime I did read your blog-post on the matter. I am actually working with political cartoons and representations trough a ‘how’ question. My initial idea was to do Barthesian semiotics and then a professor suggested that I combine this with visual discourse analysis. However I have not found someone working with both to get a grasp of how to do this and the books I’ve read have not been enlightening to be honest. My main question is what is the difference between connotation and VDA? Barthesian semiotics does not require background research. Does VDA do? I mean citing along with interpreting what others have said? I know iconography employees background research. I am trying to understand if doing just Barthesian semiotics is interpreting the images as such with pre-exisitng knowledge and what would be the difference if I added discourse analysis to my method. I am also very confused about adding background knowledge which has not been part of the Literature Review in the discussion section. Would that be ok? Apparently according to our methods’ professors there are no specific guideliness with regard to visual analysis. Finally I am not looking at power and I am a bit scared of starting to write about Fucault or Fairclough in my methodology… Shall I rule out VDA? I would really appreciate your opinion!

Dear Dr.Florian,

Hope you are doing well. I once posted in your website a few months ago, about my PhD research on discourses of Oil and Gas companies in legitimizing their renewable energy investment. Since then I have continued working and found some challenges. May I ask for your kind support once more on my methodology? The thing is I would like to compare the discourses that five companies ( 3 from Thailand, 1 from Indonesia and 1 from Malaysia) use in their annual reports. I collected the annual reports from the first year until the latest year in the companies website. Then I identified the discourses on each renewable energy source that I found in the annual reports of each company. Then I counted the frequency of the discourses. For example, For Company A, I found that they use discourse on Energy security in total 10 times from the annual report in year 2001 until 2014 to justify their investment on biofuels, 7 times for discourse on economic benefit for company, and 4 times for discourses on climate change mitigation. I did the same with all companies and other renewable energy sources. My questions to ask for your advice is that 1) do you think I can use the frequency of the discourse to find out which discourse is more dominant in the perception of that company? If not, which approach should I use instead? 2) I wonder if this method in counting frequency of the discourse is acceptable in discourse analysis approach (given that I have a big amount of data to analyze: 54 annual reports from these five companies). I have difficulty in convincing other professors in my faculty on this method. One of criticism I got was that the frequency of discourses does not mean that the company really think that way. Anyway, apart from analyzing annual reports, I plan to interview stakeholders like companies, government and NGOs, and gain the talks data to triangulate what I found from the annual reports. What do you think of these methodologies? Thank you very much. Waen

Dear Waen, Thanks for following up on your project. Personally, I use word frequencies only as a starting point for my analyses, essentially to check how the discourse is roughly structured. I then go and check what the documents say in each case, since the qualitative differences might matter quite a bit. For instance, a speech by a politician might mention a particular concept only once, but if it makes a radical statement on that one occasion, it might matter far more than the hundreds of mentions that a popular but less revolutionary issue received in the same text. I think you can use the numbers you’ve gathered to show how there are indeed slightly different emphases between companies, but you’d have to justify these numbers by showing and explaining that your coding method is indeed systematic and consequently comparable across these cases. If you just counted word-frequencies, then this is (largely) unproblematic, since the terms you are counting are already in the text, for anyone to count just like you did. If, however, you are coding sections on other criteria (i.e. by identifying broader, thematic coding categories), then I’d be careful doing any calculations on the resulting numbers. The thing with thematic coding is that no two researchers are likely to have the exact same coding parameters, since each instance is a personal judgement of where and how to include the ‘discourse fragment’ in the broader coding matrix; the coding process is, in that sense, not necessarily ‘objective’ – it is something researchers do to the materials in order to distil order from the, in a hermeneutic fashion, based on both theoretical and empirical considerations. The number of such coding instances can still be interesting (again: provided your choices are indeed comparable), but I would not, for instance, now do advanced statistical analysis on the numerical aspects of the coding process, for instance by calculating correlations between topics, since this is not the kind of data that exists objectively ‘within’ the texts themselves; it is data that you created for your own analysis. So in short, depending on how you calculated your frequencies, I would use the numbers to highlight where the emphasis in different sources lies, according to my coding categories, and I would then follow up to see what statements the texts make, qualitatively.

As for the argument that the documents won’t tell you what the companies ‘think’, this is true for any discourse analysis (or content analysis more broadly, in fact). We can never know what anyone ‘really’ thinks, and certainly not based on what they said or wrote. However, that is not the point. The point is to see how actors contribute to communication practices through their discursive actions, and what concepts and relationships they adopt in their discourse. A radical discourse theorists might argue that it doesn’t matter what people (or companies, or governments) really ‘think’, it only matters what they express through their discourses and their social practices, since these are the only things we can actually judge them by. We cannot know anything beyond that. So I would always include a disclaimer in my writings to that effect, and I would never argue that the discourse analysis I conduct shows what someone ‘wants’, or ‘means’, or ‘thinks’. Exploring these issues would indeed require a very different kind of study (if these things can ever be established at all). I hope this is useful. All the best, Florian

Thank you so much for your profound explanation. You made very right point about how I counted those frequency. And to be honest, I am confused which way is correct. What I did is to identify discourse fragments and counted their frequency. I counted every same discourse fragment throughout one annual report. Then I would group those related discourse fragments into categories or discourse strands. Such as, I grouped “environmental friendly sources”, “reduce air pollution” and “reduce greenhouse gas emissions” under the theme “Environmental conservation”. Also I combined all frequency of those discourse fragments to make the frequency of the theme”Environmental conservation”. And you are very right that this grouping process is subjectivity. Me, as a researcher, grouped those fragments based on my interpretation. The case of environmental conservation is somehow easy to group. But there are other fragments that required interpretation to decide which theme they should belong to. I was also criticized at this grouping process, saying that I should have an objective method to group. Anyway, I used the frequency of each themes (discourse strands) to see which discourses appear to be relatively important for the company (this is based on my assumption that the more discourse was used, the more the company think about or is concerned about it.) as well as to compare between companies in three countries. In addition, I made a table to identify the change over year of those discourse fragments. From the first year of annual report to the latest year, I wrote which discourse fragment was used. This table helps me to see the dynamic of discourse and find out which year that the companies applied the most various discourse to justify their biofuel investment. Then I will go check what happened in the year, such as the world crude oil price was increased dramatically.

Above are my methodologies I have used. I am now considering other ways to count frequency. First way is counting the frequency of each discourse fragment like I did, 2) counting only when I found new discourse fragment. I mean, if I found the discourse fragment on “Biofuel is environmental friendly” 4 times in Year 2001, I would count these 4 times as “one” , or 3) counting all discourse fragments under the same theme as one. Such as, in year 2001, I would count all discourse fragments under the theme “Environmental conservation” as “one”. Each way will lead to different frequency number. Could you please suggest me which one that is correct? Regarding the comment on what company really thinks, I agree with you. However, since I am studying in sustainability science faculty, we are encouraged to provide policy recommendations based on our findings. As a result, I cannot simply say that I cannot know what the company really think or that it is not important to know “the real incentive of companies” (also I agree with you that such thing maybe not acquirable). Thank you very much again for your kindness. Best regards, Waen

Hi Waen, I’ll have to keep it short; there’s a lot in your comment that I’d love to discuss with you, but I’m sadly somewhat short on time. Just briefly: I would stick with the actual number of times that you identified a particular theme, rather than collapsing these numbers into binaries (‘yes’ vs ‘no’ on whether a theme occurred). It’s possible that the latter is also of value, but you’d have to demonstrate what you are trying to achieve by that. At any rate, you wouldn’t be measuring a ‘frequency’ any more, since frequencies look at number of occurrences during a specific time interval (which some scholars do indeed interpret as meaning: within a specific text or data sample). The trick here will be to explain and justify to your readers (and examiners) how you identified the specific themes (based on specific words that occurred? based on an analysis of the meaning within a sentence?), to assure them that you worked systematically in ways that can now be compared across samples, and to not run any quantitative procedures on those numbers or draw positivist conclusions from them that would require more objective data. Thanks again for sharing your thought process on this. I hope all goes well with the next phase of the project, and that you’ll be able to put together an argument that convinces your colleagues and supervisors at the department. All the best, Florian

Can I reference you on this step-by-step method? I.e. have you published this? If yes, what would it be?

Many thanks. I love your website!

Kind regards, Daniel Hummelsund

Hi Daniel, Glad you are finding this useful. I haven’t published the post in a journal, but you could simply reference the blog post: Schneider, Florian (2013, May 13), ‘How to Do a Discourse Analysis’. Politics East Asia, retrieved on [date] from [URL]. (or some version of this in a different referencing style). Best, Florian

[…] most popular blog post on my website, on how to do a discourse analysis, had 111,802 unique page views, out of 273,272 as a whole, and 349 comments. I’m quite proud […]

Dear, Florian, I am an MBA and was given an assignment on what is discourse analysis and how is it applied. I found your article very helpful. Incase there is something new I would like to hear from you.

Thanks Paul, I hope it helps with the assignment. There’s not much new to report, though you might find additional ideas, discussions, or even sources in the comment section of this article (if you’re willing to mine through it). Hope all goes well with your degree.

wonderfully presented, may I add that respresentations of news may use particualr syntactic forms like, Active/passive voice, ergatives…etc that are available to either foreground/ background the doer of an action. say a weapon specialized magazine writer will usually hide the lethal effect of what is discribed because the audience are more interested in the features of such item. they are aware of the its danger, hence no need to mention that..

Thanks for adding this. You’re completely right. I also like your example. It nicely shows how communities of people end up sharing an idea of what should be ‘common sense’ on the topics that connect them.

Dear Dr Schneider,

I am sure you must be busy. However, I would really appreciate your insight regarding the question I posted on the 13th of July above! Apparently visual discourse analysis is not defined anywhere by scholars…

Many thanks in advance,

Dear Vili, Sorry for not responding earlier. I completely missed your earlier post – it fell through the cracks while I was travelling. You are right that semiotics approaches can work at the level of the cultural content alone, by checking what different symbols mean in an image and how they are related through visual cues in that instance, but to be honest: I doubt there are many ‘pure’ studies that do not include any socio-cultural context at all. Most visual analyses combine the content-level with the societal level (i.e. semiotics with iconography), and I would always recommend being eclectic and mix methods as needed. The way I myself treat ‘visual discourse analysis’ is simply to draw from the theoretical frameworks of discourse theory as well as any useful methods for analysing the linguistic bits in an image (like captions). This all readily combines with semiotics (how images and text come together to ‘anchor’ denotations or ‘relay’ connotations) and with iconography (what a symbol means in a particular time and place, and what its history might be). Does this answer your question? You can also send me an email if having this discussion here becomes to cumbersome (and also: to make sure I don’t miss a post). Best, Florian

Dr Schneider,

No worries. Thank you very much for taking the time to reply and for the suggestion to e-mail you! It means a lot!

nice 1. love it, but I have a question. why is discourse analysis considered as multi-disciplinary. Florian Schneider.

Hi there. To answer your question: discourse analysis gets used as a method across various disciplines, ranging from political science to anthropology to literary studies. In each case, researchers tend to ‘tweak’ the methodological framework and take on board different theoretical concerns, but the overarching premise tends to remain the same: that communication constructs the truths we share as societies. As for your second question, tone of voice can indeed be relevant to the analysis, but it depends on your research question and your materials. For instance, tone of voice may matter a great deal in political speeches, or in ethnographic interviews, but it may matter far less for instance in news broadcasts or in some mass art formats (for instance some TV programmes are so ‘over-determined’ in their meanings that tone of voice does not add any nuances that setting and dialogue don’t already get across).

Hi Florian. why is ‘tone of voice’ Vital to the analyst.

Hello dear distinguished professor God bless you .I found your invaluable advice and recommendations,I am deeply in dire of your need ,please guide me what should I do to translate metaphors in political news discourse with the case study of war-torn Arab refugees flooding into Europe?

yours respectfully

Dear Sharifi, That’s a pretty big question that I would have trouble answering in a short online comment. I assume you mean to analyse the metaphors that get used in news reports about Arab refugees in Europe? You’d have to define which news sources you’ll be using and why, and I would also recommend limiting the time frame to something manageable (e.g. a random month, or maybe a time period that follows some specific event). Once you’ve collected the respective materials, you could go through them and ‘code’ all instances in which metaphors get used. If you then collect all metaphors and compile them according to the various sentiments they relay or statements they make, you can then explore in detail how certain sets of metaphors work in their respective context. This could also include a closer study of the historical background that informs certain metaphors, their ‘intertextuality’ (i.e. use in other contexts), and the way that they are deployed to make certain statements in certain sources. The exact parameters of your study will depend on your research question, though.

Hi, I really thank you for all the practical information, I wanted to ask you if you can kindly suggest some titles of novels that can be analysed according to the principles of Critical Discourse Analysis .

I’m not sure I have good advice for you there. Basically any novel can be analysed using CDA. The issue here would be what you are interested in exploring. Are you hoping to analyse a specific political ideology? In such a case, a novel that presents such an ideology would probably be a good choice (e.g. something by Ayn Rand to study her brand of libertarianism, something by Chinese writer Ba Jin to explore his discourse on anarchism, and so on). Or you could pick a novel that was influential in how it depicted a specific historical period (like Gone With the Wind or the Kite Runner), societal issue (like ‘racism’ in To Kill a Mockingbird or something similar), or general theme (like ‘progress’ or ‘technology’ in science fiction novels by writers like Neal Stephenson or William Gibson). As you can see, the possibilities are almost limitless, so you’ll have to make some tough choices about what you’re interested in.

Thanks a lot for the fruitful article about DA. It is very helping for novice researchers. I appreciate your help. Peace, Abdo

Thanks Abdo, that’s very kind of you. Glad you found this useful.

Dear Dr Schneider Greetings, I do not have any questions this time, just want to thank you for this wonderful page, your kind response and encouragement. God bless you.

Thank you Sahra. That means a lot.

Great work, Dr. Florian Schneider!

Super stuff! Simply amazing! And breathtakingly simplistic!

I couldn’t be more grateful, sir.

Can you kindly do a similar thing for Critical Discourse Analysis – even though I’d be the first to agree that most of the ideas you’ve proffered above can be applied to critical discourse analysis too.

I look forward to hearing favorably from you.

Dear Mark, Thanks for the kind words. I wish I had the time to do something similar specifically for CDA, but as you point out: the process is fairly similar. Also, depending on the CDA scholars you read, you get different emphases on e.g. structural features, quantitative factors, or detailed analysis of grammar features. So, sadly, I’m only able to point you towards a book I keep recommending: Wodak & Meyer’s ‘Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis’ ( http://amzn.to/2dvlEx1 ). The chapters present the views of various CDA specialists, which makes for a very nice overview, even if it’s a lot more material to work through than a short blog post. Sorry to not be able to write a summary of this at the moment, but I hope you’ll find the literature helpful. All the best, Florian

Dr. Schneider Greetings. What is the relationship between frame analysis and discourse analysis? Thank you very much for your help. Sahra

Dear Sahra, To me, the two have always been closely related. Much of framing analysis is interested in rhetorical devices as well, so there is a lot of overlap with discourse analysis, at least at a practical level. I would say the overarching questions that the two approaches ask tend to be slightly different: framing analysis ask how language (and sometimes visuals) create an organising principle for a story, usually in the news. For example, if I use the metaphor of ‘war’ to describe the issue of immigration, then I’m forcing a specific set of ideas and relations onto the topic (immigrants become ‘enemies’, processes that might be negotiated become ‘battles’, and so on). This creates a bias and guides the perspective of readers to certain conclusions. Discourse analysis asks how communication shapes knowledge more broadly, and how that knowledge then turns into institutions. For instance, if it becomes acceptable to use the same metaphor, then that discursive practice might ‘naturlize’ the idea that immigration is an existential threat to society, and this might serve as a justification to build a wall around a country. But as you can see, the two approaches are very similar. If you haven’t checked it out already, I would recommend Jim Kuypers’ influential work on framing and media bias. Best – Florian

Dear Dr. Schneider Thank you so much for the help. As always precise and to the point.

Greetings Dr. Schneider! I am an English Language major from the Philippines. My thesis adviser asked me to use discourse analysis as a research design for my study. I’m not quite sure if I got her point. Can you enlighten me with how I could possibly put that into context? Thank you and more power!

Dear Cristelle, The answer, I think, will depend on what your research project is. I assume you are trying to figure out how some form of communication practice shapes knowledge on a specific topic? If that is the case, you could first discuss discourse theory in the conceptual section of your thesis and then move on to explain how you yourself plan to study texts (or other media) to answer your research question – a discussion that I would normally place in a separate methods chapter. For that, the guideposts I’ve put together above might be helpful, though you should also check what important discourse analysts have written on the subject (e.g. Chilton, Fairclough, Van Dijk, Wodak, etc.).

Dear Dr Schnider Greetings While content analysis concentrates on the text, discourse analysis examines the text and its social, cultural, political and historical context. I have some problem with historical context. For example in my research topic “Discursive construction of risk associated with GMO” , what is the historical context. How can I historicize GMO? Should I start from the introduction of modernization in agricultural sector? Should I start from the introduction of biotechnology and the representation of its risks in the media? Sometimes people with different political subject positions have similar environmental subject positions, though their political identity are not similar and even contradictory, their environmental subject positions are similar, how can we interpret this situation? Can we use Laclau and Mouffe’s logic of difference and logic of equivalence? Public debates about risks in democratic societies is a sign of participatory governance, but how can we interpret such debate in non democratic societies? Many thanks for your

Dear Dr Schnider Greetings While content analysis concentrates on the text, discourse analysis examines the text and its social, cultural, political and historical context. I have some problem with historical context. For example in my research topic “Discursive construction of risk associated with GMO” , what is the historical context. How can I historicize GMO? Should I start from the introduction of modernization in agricultural sector? Should I start from the introduction of biotechnology and the representation of its risks in the media? Sometimes people with different political subject positions have similar environmental subject positions, though their political identity are not similar and even contradictory, their environmental subject positions are similar, how can we interpret this situation? Can we use Laclau and Mouffe’s logic of difference and logic of equivalence? Public debates about risks in democratic societies is a sign of participatory governance, but how can we interpret such debate in non democratic societies? Many thanks for your help

Dear Sahar, Sorry for keeping you waiting with a response. I was away during our exam week here in Leiden. I can’t answer your question about Laclau and Mouffe, since I’d have to read up on that first, but I’ll do my best to comment on the other two questions you raise. With regards to the historical context, I doubt you would have to roll out the entire history of agricultural production to discuss GMOs, but you should ask yourself how current institutions and discourses might be the result of previous practices. The point is to contextualize your work. Are there elements in the way that people discuss GMOs that extend (or rupture) the logic of how their predecessors discussed crop production and management? Do the institutions that today promote (or challenge) GMOs a legacy of older institutions? Do they build on such older institutions? In the US, there might be a connection between state subsidies, private enterprises, and university research that plays a role today in generating a certain aspect of the GMO discourse, but that actually dates back to earlier such collaborations in the 1950s. It’s cases like these where a historical comment might be useful, but I would recommend letting your materials guide you. Everything has history, after all, and comparing discourses ‘diachronically’ across time like Foucault did is a major undertaking. Also, not all historical precedents shape contemporary discourses, so you’d have to make your own assessment as to what matters to your case, and you’d have to justify what you are leaving out and why. As for ‘risk society’, there are quite a few scholars who have made the case that Beck’s concept also applies to non-democratic societies, e.g. China. A major point here is that any government needs to legitimate its rule to its subjects, even if that legitimation does not happen through discussions in a free public sphere or regular national elections. Under conditions of our present modernity, regulators increasingly act within a networked society (I’m thinking of Castells here), to the point where it becomes tricky to even talk about politics in clear ‘state vs. society’ terms. That said, we should of course remain careful not to reproduce discourses of modernity in contexts that had historically different experiences from Europe or the US. For inspiration, here’s a short discussion by an ethnographer: http://anthropos-lab.net/bpc/2014/03/china-risk-society . At any rate, these are pretty big questions, and you can probably tell I’m struggling to provide concise but useful answers. I hope this nonethelss helps a bit. Regards, Florian

Dear Dr Schnider Salam I am not certain how I can thank you; the language is a barrier to express my deepest gratitude for devoting your time to my intellectual problems. With kind regards Sahar

You’re more than welcome, Sahar. Glad I could help. Keep up the good work!

Assalam o alaikum Florian, Hope you will be fine. it is very helpful for new researchers, i have quesetion that could we use discourse analysis for social media content like facebook, twitter? Thanks

Absolutely! In fact, new media analysis connects very nicely with discourse analysis. You would need to ‘mine’ social media comments, which can prove technically a bit tricky, but there are free apps available for compiling Twitter and Facebook data, so I would check what is currently the most up-to-date software. If you have access to a programme like NVivo, then that software has a built-in scraper for several social media platforms that can do this part of the job for you. Something important to keep in mind are the ethical implications of gathering and using such data. You may generally want to anonymize the posters, since they probably did not expect their comments to appear in another context like an academic study. Even then, I would only use comments that have been made available publicly (e.g. on a platform like Twitter, or by a public organization on Facebook). If you plan to analyze the discourse of a closed group on Facebook or WhatsApp, or if you are hoping to include people whose profile is limited to their ‘friends’ only, then you would need their consent. Once the technical and ethical problems are out of the way, though, you should be able to use most of the work-steps I’ve outlined above on the ‘tweets’ or ‘comments’ that you have compiled, and in particular linguistic elements should prove promising for such an analysis. Finally, you may want to keep you eye open for ‘digital native’ elements that effect how such communication works differently from discourse in other media. For instance, hashtags, hyperlinks, or even the artificial limit in characters on Twitter are not part of a traditional discourse analysis, but they clearly shape how meanings are generated online, so you’ll have to figure out how such components fit into discursive practices. I hope this helps! Good luck with the analysis.

Dear Florian， Thank you sooo much for sharing your good idea.I’m Karin, from China, currently struggling with my thesis related to the features of female politians’ speeches and their translation in Chinese. Your words enligten me! I’ll do discourse analysis first. Besides, I would really appreciate if you could provide me any information related to specific features of this kind of speech. Thanks for your kindness. All the best for u. Looking forward to your reply!

Dear Karin, Thanks for your kind words, and apologies for only responding now. I’m struggling to find good advice that I might give you. The topic of gendered speech is extremely exiting, particularly in contexts like politics, but I haven’t studied the phenomenon, so I wouldn’t know what to recommend. I do suspect that the question of translation (which is somewhat a separate question) will provide you with some very interesting insights. Translation is always also a discursive practice, so checking how key terms were rendered in the target language should tell you quite a lot about the translators and the conceptual framework they use. It’ll be interesting to see what you learn, so do let me know what you find. Best, Florian

Hi, Thanks for your informative posts. I am doing an MA and want to do a discourse analysis of public policy more specifically frequency spectrum management. Any suggestion on the approach and material for analyzing policy using discourse analysis

Hi there! An interesting topic, which I sadly know very little about. I’m only familiar with the US context, mainly from the work of people like Benkler, Lessig, and so on regarding the changing nature of networked media and politics. I haven’t studied frequency spectrum management myself, though I suspect a number of media historians must have examined this issue in different national contexts. If I were to study policy on the topic, I’d probably try to explore how issues of market vs. state are presented in policy documents, and I would check whether there is a notable change over time in how the respective regulatory framework gets legitimated. You could, for instance, pick a particularly important policy ruling or an event that informed policy debate, and you could then check documentation before and after. A good thing to look for would be core concepts that the policy documents use to make sense of the issue. If you can check what those concepts are, and how they are used in their context, you might be able to track shifts of meanings and conceptual work on the part of the law-makers. These are just some very rudimentary thought, though, so make sure to check with your supervisor to see if this is what they have in mind as well. Overall, I suspect that a discourse analysis would work quite well for such a project – you should be able to apply quite a few of the work-steps I’ve discussed above to your case, depending on the precise focus that your research question and your materials require.

Thank you, I failed to understand in class so somehow landed here. I can confidently say, I am now understanding discourse analysis.

Hello dear Florian, Thank you for your informative contributions and responses and I highly appreciate your quick replies to the reader’s questions. I am conducting a study on “the inclusion of cultural elements in one of the textbooks”. My objectives are: to identify the representation of cultural features and elements in this textbook; and the impact of such cultural elements on the students’ lifestyles. Do you think that the CDA is applicable to such study? Shall I refer to the frequency of using cultural elements such as music, ethics, sports, food, etc.? Shall I refer to the layout and chapterization of the book? Shall I analyze the data based on the themes (cultural elements) or on the chapterization of the book? Thank you in advance.

Sorry for only replying to this now. Somehow the comment fell through the cracks, my sincere apologies. For a very brief answer (if it is not far too late at this point): I think CDA would work very nicely here, but depending on the book (and the students), you could indeed include visual elements such as layout and design. Your question about chapterization potentially go in this direction, and they might make for a coding categories (after all, the authors/editors chose these thematic distinctions themselves). This is quite a big question, so if you still need advice at this stage, send me an email (through the contact section), and I’ll respond in a more timely fashion.

Dear Dr Schneider Thank you very much for answering my questions patiently, wish you a very happy new you!

Dear Florian

I can’t thank you enough for this article! I am doing a discourse analysis of the citizenship debate in Australia, with a focus on partisan views and statements. I am currently exploring this area in depth and would love to hear your opinion about the best elements of DA to conduct this research.

Thank you! Remah

Dear Remah, This sounds like an exciting project. Which work steps you use will depend a bit on your materials, and the scope you want to cover through your research question. Are you interested in the linguistic details of how people frame the issue in the materials? Then a more detailed look at grammar and word-use would be interesting. If, on the other hand, you are more interested in the broad-stroke themes in a large corpus of text, then a mixed-methods approach with some quantitative elements might be most fruitful – maybe something that lets you isolate particular documents for closer analysis, or that allows you to zoom in on how particular ‘protagonists’ and ‘antagonists’ get constructed, how specific themes or key terms are deployed, etc. Let me know if I can help with any additional advice, and make sure to drop a line about how you experienced using these methods in your own study. Would love to hear how it went. Best, Florian

Dear Florian Thank you very much for your reply and apologies for my delay! My research question is “What impact does political rhetoric have on understandings of citizenship?” After reading a number of books in this area, I found that Martin Reisigl’s politolinguistic analysis of political rhetoric is the most appropriate for my research, although at some point when it comes to the detailed-case analysis I know that I haven’t decided on particular approaches. I still need to isolate certain documents for closer analysis as you said, so can I start with broad-stroke themes and do detailed analysis (for grammar and word-use) for the selected data? Or do you recommend a particular approach for this research question? I hope you don’t mind all these questions, I want to make sure that I am in the direction and really want to make the most of my project. Thanks! Remah

Hello Florian Thank you for this perfect article about discourse analysis! It really helped me. I would like to ask for some tips. I am working on thesis where I analyse political discourse of Russian president during Crimea events (from 21 February 2014 to 18 March 2014). But I do not want to analyse his speeches and texts in general but from point of view of Neo-eurasianism – It is a modern Russian geopolitcal theory which is often described that is influencing foreign policy of Russia. I would like to find the signs of this theory in president’s discourse. My research question is: Can we find new waves of neo-eurasianism in prezident’s discourse during Crimea events? Can you give me some tips how to make a coding and categories part, because I am not sure if I understand it perfectly. Sincerely Michal

Hi Michael, This is very cool topic. It sounds almost like a comparative study, at least to some extent: how do discourses of neo-eurasianism (e.g. in academia, in the press, in the documents of certain political organizations) compare to the discourses in the presidents speeches? My question to you would be: what would count as good source material on what ‘neo-eurasianism’ is? Once you have an answer to that question, you should be able to draw up a list of codding categories from those materials, and you can then apply those categories to your primary source (the presidential speeches). So, for example, if you had academic studies on the theory of neo-eurasianism, you could go through those to establish what the main concepts or themes are. You build your coding list from that, and they you go hunting for similar concepts and themes in the presidential speeches. Next, you check what is actually said in those speeches, and you assess how the speeches construct their sense of neo-eurasianism (to they conform to the academic arguments, do they extend them, do they challenge them, etc.?). One important side-note: you’d probably still need to do some ‘evolutionary coding’ as you mark up the speeches for further analysis. Even with a ready-made coding list, based on assumptions from other sources, you might come across new categories that are native to the presidential speeches, and that you did not anticipate. I would keep an eye open for such categories, and I’d then integrate them into my coding. I hope this helps! Let me know how it goes, and what you find. Regards, Florian

Thank you very much for a perfect advices. In thesis I found a several concepts of the neo-eurasianism and than I analyse three speeches of Putin. Apart from that, I analyse also a body language and use of metaphors so it was quite interesting. I found that lot of the concepts of neo-eurasianism is used in his language like anti-americanism, refusal of the West, some points connected to a orthodox religion, expansionism etc. Of course, thesis could not say that neo-eurasianism is a inspiration for foreign policy of Russia or vice versa because it is a quite subjective and qualitative method but at least it could give answers, how Putin is transforming neo-eurasianistic thought into his speeches and how he uses them. Thank you very much again, you really helped me to finish my thesis. Sincerely Michal

I’m writing my B.A thesis on the representation of women in gender magazines (I want to analyse issues of Cosmopolitan and Maxim from 2016). I wanted to ask you about the methods of data collection within Critical Discourse Analysis : is there any methodology that allows for the data to be randomly selected ? (The reason why I’m asking is that I only have access to a few magazines within the year I want to analyse and I am worried that it could be regarded as scientific dishonesty if my sample won’t include all of the magazines from 2016). The only approach I can think of here would be ‘grounded theory’ by Glaser and Strauss, but even in this case the data must be oriented around a certain theme…

P.S. I am really impressed at the fact that you take your time to help other people, that’s really heartwarming that there still are people who want to do something for others :) keep up the good work, your blog is a godsend!

Kind Regards,

Thanks for the kind words. What you describe is indeed a thorny issue. You have to be careful not to ‘cherry-pick’ your materials. I don’t think there’s a systematic angle from the literature that you can apply here, but that may not have to put an end to your study. You could, for instance, be honest about the limitations you faced collecting the materials, and as long as you declare that you can’t generalize across the whole year, you may still be able to compare particular months. Maybe there’s a particular event or topic that you can use to narrow down your materials in a way that fits what is available? For instance, if someone were to analyze only the 2017 February issue of Vogue (on ‘diversity’), that would work quite nicely and would probably be sufficient for a BA thesis. You might find a similarly useful or controversial element in the 2016 corpus you are looking at. It really all depends on how you frame the inquiry, and how you narrow down your research question. Whatever you decide: I would discuss this with your supervisor to see if they are happy with a study that has certain limitations with regards to the available materials. If they think your reasoning won’t carry the thesis, then it might be better to pick a different topic or another angle to this topic.

Not sure that was very helpful – it’s tough to decide what to do when your materials don’t line up elegantly. Let me know if you were able to come up with a creative rationale for still doing this study. It definitely sounds interesting.

Regards, Florian

[…] article uses DA to examine the variances between themes in promotional texts from different tertiary institutions: the Technical and Further […]

[…] Analysis, a toolbox for analysing political texts, Politics East Asia, viewed 28th March 2107 < http://www.politicseastasia.com/studying/how-to-do-a-discourse-analysis/#!prettyPhoto […]

Dear Florian, I prepare my MA about tv satirical comedy shows and I want to analyze the data of 3 programs one is about political satire, the second is about fictional news comedy and the third is about social comedy. it is my first trail to analyze any text linguistically. Can you advise me what to do?. I read a lot about Simpson’s 2003 method of analysis of satirical discousre, how can i mix this method with that of media discourse analysis thanks a lot

I want to ask about if there is is a method to analyze comedy programs to get new ways of creating humor. and what are the helpfull steps for the analysis? biroo

Dear Biroo, That’s a really good question, though sadly a bit outside of my own comfort zone. I’m only familiar with the philosophical discussions about humour, e.g. the work of John Morreall on ‘Comic Relief’ (and his edited volume on ‘The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor’), though I’m not sure how much that helps here. You might find practical analyses in journals such as Discourse & Society or Discourse & Communication, but you’d have to check the back issues. Conceptually, I could imagine your study connecting to questions about whether (and how) satirical language functions ‘critically’ (as in: shocking people to think differently about accepted knowledge), or whether such language reinforces accepted knowledge (for instance by ‘normalizing’ stereotypes) – Raymond Geuss has written an interesting book chapter on the brother of Martin Heidegger, who was a carnival satirist during the NS regime (in the book ‘Politics and the Imagination’)… but again: that’s a theoretical discussion more than an empirical analysis of discourses. The only advice I have, other than checking back issues of various journals, is to take a look at the various ‘work steps’ that discourse analysts frequently use, and to put together your own ‘toolbox’ that promises to answer your questions. Personally, I’d also pay attention to the visual setup in these programmes, since humour often works by juxtaposing contradictory signs in different modes – you won’t see those signs unless you check all available modes, so: language, gestures, sound effects and music, props, camera movement, etc. I’ve provided a short introduction on such visual communication elements on this website, if you are interested: Sorry to not be of more help. I hope you find an approach that works for you. Let me know how your project works out. Best, Florian

Hi I just read your article and git amazed by the length of people’s questions and your replies. So my well concerned question or rather worry is: I am writing Research Proposal for my M.A and my research is to explore communication barriers of south asian immigrants in canada in accessing settlment service. What is in my mind is to analyse oral and written communicatio of above siad immigrants in settling their lives that range from speaking to government official, speaking to bank manager to signing a rental agrement. Any written or verbal coomunication i refer as discourse i want to analyze. I want to put it in ethnographic discourse analysis. I am worry about my method and methology, limitation and delimitation and theoritical lense. Am i right to combine ethnography and discourse analysis?

Hi Raj, This is a great project, and I’d say combining an ethnographic approach with discourse analysis should work very well. You’d actually be able to get very rich data, by connecting what people say or write with what you observe them doing. Also, a major source of ‘data’ for you, will be personal interviews, which is a classic domain for discourse analysis: you can study how people view their predicaments, what categories they use or construct to make sense of their interactions, and what legitimation strategies they come up with as they explain and justify what they are doing. You’d have to explain, in your proposal, how you plan to conduct those interviews. I’d recommend open-ended, semi-structured interviews that you record and then summarize in a protocol – you can code the protocol and then selectively transcribe sections you plan to analyze in detail. Alternatively, you can transcribe everything that is said (a much more thorough and professional approach), but that might explode the scope of an MA, depending on the target language and the number of interviews. So in short: yes! This should be doable. As always with these things, I’d talk to my supervisor later to see what they say. After all, your project has to fit into their area of expertise as well. Good luck with the project!

Your blog is such a great guideline to use for Discourse Analysis. I’m currently doing an MA paper on Discourse Analysis and our assessment is to analyse text according to some systematic functions. I have chosen to use SFL and CA in analysing Green environment discourse in terms of the website http://www.fijiwater.com/ . I will be analysing possibly only a few sections from the website. I was wondering, from a New Media perspective – which sections would be more useful for analysis?

Thank you for your on-going help and support.

Hi Nia, This is a good question. The website is full of interesting bits and pieces that would be worth examining, particularly when it comes to the interactive and animated content, as well as the cross-over with social media. If you’re mainly hoping to study the linguistic properties of the discourse, then the FAQ and about sections would be primary concerns, but if you are willing to expand into visual discourses, then I’d definitely study the homepage that users ‘land’ on, the store page, and probably also the section ‘the water’. It depends a bit what you have isolated as the major discursive themes you want to explore. In terms of how to study web content like this, I usually suggest the following two texts for inspiration (even though they are a little dated): – Knox, John S. (2009): “Punctuating the Home Page : Image as Language in an Online Newspaper”, Discourse & Communication 3/2, 145-172. – Pauwels, Luc (2005), “Websites as Visual and Multimodal Cultural Expressions : Opportunities and Issues of Online Hybrid Media Research”, Media Culture Society 27/4: 604-613. I would also recommend examining the ‘production background’ of the website (what do we know about the company, what do we know about the designers, if such info is available), and maybe even looking at the hyperlink networks that the website is embedded in, to see whether any particular ‘issue’ emerges from the online representations you are looking for (this only really works if you have additional websites and want to check if/how they are connected, though – for hyperlink analysis, I’d recommend checking out Richard Rogers’ work with the IssueCrawler software, just FYI). Personally, I’d probably still focus on the linguistic elements most strongly, expanded by an analysis of core visual and interactive components, to show how the presentation / interface ‘guides’ perception on your topic. I hope these tips are useful. Best wishes, Florian

PS: SFL (Systematic Functional Linguistics) and CDA (Critical Discourse Analysis) is what I will be using mostly for this analysis focused on the way that environmental or green discourses are used to construct and sell the product.

The guidelines you provided are really helpful and quite explicit. I came across a study recently on CDA and the researcher selected some samples by choosing the first news item, the last news item and the longest- writtennews item in all the samples for his analysis. can this selection be representative enough?

Thank you, Koiki.

Hi Koiki, I’d have to see the study to see if this sort of selection makes sense. It’s quite possible that the author is able to get a good cross-section of discourses that way. Did you think it was a successful study, and that the selection criteria ended up being convincing? I have to admit I’m a bit sceptical. I would normally look at a larger corpus of news articles at the marco-level first, so either by using quantitative methods like key word frequency calculations, or by compiling all headlines plus useful meta-data for each item (editorials vs. reports, length, or any other information you consider relevant), and I would then code the headlines for the issues I’m exploring. I’d then use that information to single out specific articles that promise to answer my core research question, based on clear selection criteria I’d explain in the methodology section of my paper. But that may just be me… Best, Florian

Hi Florian, I am student doing my Bsc program and am to submit a proposal for my final year project. working on Discourse analysis and i have no idea where to begin. I have only the basic knowledge of discourse analysis. Was thinking of working on speeches or news captions and how they always seem to be very deceiving, but my main issue is how to phrase it so i can be specific, how to get materials and how to work on the body. I have issues expressing my self that is finding the right words without repeating myself. Will be glad of any help. I admire the way you seem to know what to say, have an extensive knowledge and the very nice way of using big words.

Hi there, Took me a moment to get back to you, my apologies. I’ve been travelling. It’s always difficult to get a new project off the ground, but if you already have some experience with discourse analysis, then you’ve got some of the hardest parts covered already. You know what kind of questions discourse analysts ask, and you know what counts as useful data. The trick is now to phrase a precise question, e.g. ‘How do captions in TV programme X shape the meanings of political speeches (of politician Y, during time interval Z, etc.), and what can this tell us about the interaction between spoken and written discourse as well as images in political TV broadcasts?’ (or something of that sort). I’m providing an example here just to highlight some of the elements you may want to keep in mind as you formulate your own question: core keywords, the main subject of your research, how to narrow down the topic, how to think about the general relevance, etc. Once you have a good question, try to structure your project in digestible chunks that you can then work on: the introduction, a review of the relevant literature, a discussion of major conceptual issues, a discussion of your methods and source selection, the various parts of your actual analysis, the conclusion, an appendix with any relevant data. That way you can go in and work on any element that fits you that specific day, without loosing track of the big picture. I often write down brief phrases or keywords, inside the overall outline of my paper or article, just to see what goes where (and what I haven’t thought enough about yet). Then I expand. I hope this helps! Good luck with the project.

Hi Dear Florian! Hope you must be fine in the best of your health and spirit. Well, first of all i would like to thank you for taking time to read my message, and also would like to appreciate all those who will reply and participate in my work. Well I am a P.hD scholar and doing research in Discourse analysis. In My M.Phil level I have done research in Linguistic discourse with title “Structural and Textual Analysis of a T.V Sitcom “Hasb-e-Haal” followed by the proposed model of Sinclair & Coulthart i-e IRF model and also a proposed model by Aurthur Asa Berger “45 techniques of humour’. I did micro level textual study of this sitcom by applying 45 techniques of humour in context of humour. And at macro level applied IRF research model of Sinclair and coulthart. Now I am interested to further elaborate my work to go in deep to study move by giving it different names. Another Idea i am interested to do my research on “Inter Languages” which is actually called “Error Analysis” 50 years back. But now this new term is used as these are not the language errors but these are the developmental stages in language learning and proficiency. But I want to do this language discourse with reference to the non native speakers the language barriers they face to communicate effectively with all the communities. What do you suggest that which one is more appealing and inspiring either to continue my work or to work on ‘Inter Languages’ which i think is also more appealing and inspiring. Your kind suggestions are needed please and also could you please shared me some Research articles/Papers based on language discourse. I would be highly grateful. Moreover, i would really like to appreciate your sincere efforts you are putting to serve the humanity by providing your valuable comments and guidance. That’s really worth taking and one day am sure you will be rewarded by our beloved Lord(God). Your early response in this regard would be highly valuable. Further I would like to welcome and appreciate the comments shared by other viewers who are working in this area and those who are seeking for guidance, i will try my level best to put my ideas in this context. Thanks in advance

Hi Hafiz, Thanks for getting in touch, and for the kind words. I’m really glad to hear you find this article useful. I’ll get in touch via email next week, if that is alright (I’m still travelling at the moment). I probably won’t have a lot of good advice on detailed linguistic topics, since my own approach focuses on political communication more broadly, rather than e.g. on language learning. That said, I’ll do my best to help if I can. All the best, Florian

Dear Florian! could you please also share some of the P.hD research proposals related to this domain and also the research paper on which you are working if you could please make trust to share. If anyone else is interested to share his/her comments i would be really happy to accept . As its my email ID [email protected]

Hi Florian, I find this step-by-step guide to conducting discourse analysis is extremely helpful. I would like to know if the method is applicable to study political documentary films (my research subjects). Most of the references that I found on discourse analysis focus on written texts. I would appreciate your opinion on this matter!

Hi Raja, My deepest apology for keeping you waiting for two months before replying to your question. I had intermittent internet access during my research trips this summer, hence the delay. I hope your question hasn’t become moot at this point? The methodology can definitely be applied to documentary films, at least in principle. I would expand by also using the toolbox of visual analysis ( ). I imagine you’ll find the sources in the list of reference useful (I would start with Iedema 2001). I hope this was helpful, despite the massive delay! Best wishes, Florian

This is very useful- particularly because when one gets into reading about discourse analysis, the theoretical load is such that it tends to overshadow the nitty gritty (coming from someone who is “accused” of being theoretically inclined). Thanks for posting!

Thanks for the kind words! Apologies for only reacting now, but I was away a lot this summer. Glad to hear you found the article useful.

Hey Florian!

I am doing an assignment that is supposed to use Laclau’s concept of dislocation as a key element of my analysis, however I am having a really hard time working out exactly what the concept entails. The texts I have that supposedly explain the concept don’t actually explain it I feel. Simply explained, what exactly does the concept mean, and how should one use it in analysis?

Any thoughts on the subject will be deeply appreciated!

Viele Grüsse,

Klaus Asbjørn

Hi Klaus, I’m so sorry that I’m only able to answer your question now. I kept you waiting for more than a month. I don’t know if you’re question is still on the table, at this point? You are probably long done with your assignment. At any rate, this is an extremely difficult topic – the kind that makes my head spin. I am not hugely knowledgeable about Laclau, and I find his later shift towards Lacanian psychoanalysis particularly daunting (…which is where the dislocation idea comes in). If I understand correctly (and don’t quote me on this!), Laclau was trying to figure out how agency and structure might work as people go about making meaning of the world around them, but he wanted to distance himself from Foucault’s ideas about discursive vs non-discursive practices. To Laclau, everything is effectively discursive. Nothing is truly non-discursive. Importantly, we never have identities that are objectively and fully formed, but our identities emerge in relation to the meanings we give other people and things. As for ‘disclocation’, I’m taking my cues here from de Mendonça, who has written an article that does a decent job explaining the meaning of that term (available here: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bpsr/v8n1/03.pdf – I found pp.68 onward particularly useful). He writes that dislocation is ‘the moment at which discourse reaches the limit of its meaning’. When something radically new upsets our order of discourses, we have to find new ways to make sense of the world, since our existing discourses no longer work. It is in these moments of crisis that we construct identities. So, in the words of de Mendonça, ‘from a dislocated structure, a need is generated for it to be restructured from new meanings or from the reactivation of meanings already in existence’. As for the relevance of that concept in an actual analysis, I have to admit that I’m not entirely sure. My instinct says we might talk of especially disruptive events as moments of dislocation, so we might explore how a discourse changes from before to after some existential crisis that forces actors to re-invent their reality (think of the Syrian refugee boy Alan Kurdi who was washed up on a Mediterranean beach in 2015 – a moment that fundamentally changed the parameters of debate about asylum, migration, and human dignity in Europe). I’m not sure whether I have answered your question, or just added to the confusion; this is a rather tricky topic, and most of the writing on it is fairly obscure. I can definitely recommend taking a look at that pdf. I’m still not 100 percent sure I have it right, but the discussion there was as clear as any I’ve seen on the subject of ‘antagonism/dislocation’ so far. Let me know if you come up with any additional information on the topic. Best wishes – Florian

I would really really highly truly appreciate it if you explain more or provide references about the focauldian (focault’s ) concept of power and discourse.. Thank you …

Hi Noha, That’s a pretty big topic. Have you taken a look at my post on discourse theory ( )? It contains a discussion of Foucault, which may already answer your questions. If it does not, feel free to get in touch by email to let me know what questions you have in mind. It’s quite busy at the moment, so it may take me a while to respond, but I’ll do my best to help. Best wishes, Florian

Good evening, i have an assignment that i should find a political discourse that fit with these ten steps and analysis it according to the steps but i feel lost , do you have some kind of models that can help me? Thank you in advance.

Dear Rawan, Sorry for only seeing your comment now – the semester has been keeping me busy. Have you already completed your assignment? If not, I can recommend trying this out on a newspaper article you find interesting, e.g. something about contemporary politics. The quantitative sections won’t be quite so relevant, though you can still test what a word distribution might look like. More importantly, you get to play with the qualitative steps in some detail, without burdening yourself with too long a text. Best – Florian

thank u ! thank u! you cant imagine how much this info helped me!!!

Thank you So much. Respected Sir.

Your article has been the utmost helpful when trying to understand qualitative research for the first time. My Masters is in Critical Diversity Studies, the research should be qualitative. Unlike many of the scholars doing case studies with he use of interviews and focus groups, I want to analyze textbooks (school textbooks in a South African perspective).

I want to go deeper than a content analysis, to engage with the deeper hidden curriculum. Your article has been enlightening through my research to find the correct data collection technique of data. This is where my confusion lines. I have been advised to use thematic analysis for data analysis. In this circumstance how do I differentiate methodologies, perpective/ approach and application.

I understand my theoretical framework, data analytical technique but not how to pose the research design and nature.

Discourse analysis seems the most fitting with the use of thematic analysis as a coding and analytical reporting.

Collection of data as well as design is the confusion.

[…] 55- Florian Schneider, “How to Do a Discourse Analysis”, Politics East Asia, May 13, 2013. http://www.politicseastasia.com/studying/how-to-do-a-discourse-analysis/ […]

[…] Schneider, Florian. 2013. “How to do a Discourse Analysis”. Web. http://www.politicseastasia.com/studying/how-to-do-a-discourse-analysis/ […]

Hello Florian, I am Supraja from India. This blog post helped me a lot in my attempt to understand CDA. I am currently working on my Master’s Thesis which focuses on finding if news values are a basis of story production and selection in hyperlocal (print) newspapers and see if the underlying news value can be ‘read off’ so to speak. So I started off with content analysis but when I stumbled into CDA along the way, I thought it would be a better tool when it comes to looking at the text as the object of study. After reading up on Fairclough’s three dimensions of CDA, I am confused about if I should go ahead with that with just textual analysis or would it be better if I look into the concept of news values taking a discursive practice? So, under which of the two should I categorise ‘news values’? Thanks in advance

Regards, Supraja

Hello and have a good day… i hope you’re in a good condition.. I’ve been through and read thoroughly your articles in this marvelous website..Glad to say that it is very helpful for me to find the useful info for what i’m doing and working on right now…

I’m from Malaysia and currently doing my PhD as a part-time student in a local university here. My research is on Discourse Analysis of printed advertisement. It sounds easy to have many previous resources that many research or study have been done. However i need your opinion and of course …advice…since i see you look very generous in sharing the knowledge and info…Thank you very much….

Apparently my focus is on Malaysia Day advertisement that to analyse the Dissemination of Patriotism Message among Malaysians through

• The use of linguistics features • Semiotics approach. • Visual communication • Speech Act Theory

Those what I have mentioned above should be based on the theories of • Fairclough’s 3-dimensional model • Reading Images by Kress and van Leuven’ • Barthes theory for semiotics. • Arthur Asa Berger semiotic analysis

that related to

• Critical Discourse Analysis • Multimodalities ???

Hence, The functions and how cultural values can be expressed in the advertisement in a detailed manner within a discourse analytic, media (ads) functions, professional communication and cultural perspective. I will Qualitatively analyzing the data..

AM I ON THE RIGHT TRACK….

Thanks for the post, I’m finding it really useful in planning my MA International Relations dissertation research.

A tip on use of Excel: rather than putting all coding in one column I suggest trying to use a separate column for each code. For example you might have a column headed China, another headed Taiwan, another Democracy, another Citizenship and so on. The researcher then enters “yes” in the column to tag that line of text. This allows the researcher to add multiple codes to one line of text and also allows you to use the Autofilter function to quickly select all lines with the same code.

Later, for presentation and analysis purposes, the researcher could change the “yes” into the name of the code by adding a new column next to each coding column. For example if the B column is for “China” the researcher would insert a blank column to its right – column C – and in cell C2 enter the formula =if(B2=”yes”,$B$1,””). They could then copy that formula down the rest of the column, do the same for the other columns and perhaps hide the columns with the “yes” values to make things more neat. A final presentational step would be to add a column that includes all the codes for each line by using the concatenate function, something like =CONCATENATE(B2,”, “,C2,”, “,D2,”, “,E2,”, “,F2).

If the number of different tags used makes this completely unwieldy a compromise might be possible by grouping codes, especially if they are unlikely to be found in the same piece of text, and then having a single column for each group. For example a column for country names, a column for political system typology, a column for IR paradigm/theory etc

Comments are closed.

A network for East Asia scholars and enthusiasts

© 2013 - 2024 • Politics East Asia • All Rights Reserved.

AFS Programs

Discourse Analysis Example: Learn How to Analyze and Interpret Conversations

Discourse analysis involves studying the patterns of language use, the chains of conversation, and the ways in which meaning is constructed and conveyed. It is a huge field with a wide variety of methods and theories. Different analysts may select different theories and methods to ensure a meaningful analysis. In this example, we will focus on a specific discourse analysis theory named the Royal Mantel theory, which looks at the opposition between the mantels worn by the participants as an indication of power and authority in the conversation.

Before we dive into the analysis, it is important to review the context and contents of the conversation. While the content of the conversation is important, the context in which it takes place also plays a crucial role in determining its meaning. Therefore, analysts need to consider both the content and the context in order to extract meaningful insights.

In our example, the conversation takes place at a formal dinner party. The participants are seated around a large table, and they engage in discussions about various topics. The conversation is led by a woman named Jane, who holds a position of authority in the group. It is worth noting that the participants are free to express their opinions and engage in critical discussions.

Now, let’s delve into the discourse analysis process. The first step is to transcribe the conversation, ensuring that every word and action is accurately documented. This allows analysts to have a clear record of the conversation and prevents any misinterpretations or plagiarism. Once the transcription is complete, the analysts can start extracting meaningful information from the conversation.

In our analysis, we will focus on the instances where someone mentions the word “mantel.” By examining how the word is used and the reactions it elicits, we can gain insights into the power dynamics and social hierarchies present in the conversation. We will also pay attention to the tone and language used by the participants when discussing the mantels.

Discourse Analysis Example: How to Analyze and Interpret Conversations

When conducting discourse analysis, the analyst must review each instance or example of discourse, including articles, emails, or even conversations among others. This process involves carefully examining the content, structure, and grammar of each discourse, looking for meaningful chains of information and identifying any effects or implications that may arise.

For example, in Mantel’s modern novel “Wolf Hall,” discourse analysis can help identify the use of discourse to define the context and develop the meanings of certain characters. By examining the discourse used by each character, analysts can investigate the motives and beliefs of these individuals, providing valuable insights into the story.

Another example of discourse analysis is when analyzing conversations between individuals. By studying the discourse between two or more people, analysts can identify patterns and relationships that exist within the conversation. This analysis can reveal how certain individuals use discourse to convey their thoughts, emotions, and intentions, providing a deeper understanding of the interactions.

Whilst discourse analysis can be used in various contexts and for different purposes, it is crucial for analysts to ensure that their work is based on valid and reliable methods. This includes avoiding plagiarism, critically evaluating the discourse, and having clear criteria for analyzing the grammaticality and coherence of the discourse.

Understanding Discourse Analysis

One step in conducting discourse analysis is to gather examples of conversations or articles to analyze. Researchers may select texts from different contexts, including casual conversations between friends, formal interviews, online discussions, or written literature. By examining the chains of meaning within these texts, researchers can gain insight into the themes, rules, and patterns of communication in a particular language or culture.

Discourse analysis also involves the critical assessment and interpretation of the results. Researchers may identify oppositions or contradictions within the text, and analyze the social, political, or cultural implications of these. They may also critique the author’s use of language and the impact it has on the reader or other participants in the conversation.

There are several different methods and approaches within discourse analysis, each with its own set of techniques and focuses. Some researchers define discourse analysis as a way to uncover hidden power relations and ideologies within language use. Others use discourse analysis to examine the ways language shapes individuals’ understanding of their own identities and experiences.

One interesting aspect of discourse analysis is its application in different fields. For example, in media studies, discourse analysis can be used to analyze news articles or political speeches to uncover underlying biases or ideologies. In psychology, discourse analysis can be used to examine the ways in which individuals construct narratives and meanings in therapy sessions or personal diaries.

Key Methods of Discourse Analysis

1. contextual analysis.

Contextual analysis involves examining the social, cultural, and historical factors that shape the communicative context of a conversation or text. It focuses on understanding the roles, relationships, and power dynamics between participants, as well as the broader socio-political influences that may influence the discourse.

2. Textual Analysis

Textual analysis analyzes the content and structure of the spoken or written texts themselves. It examines the grammaticalness, coherence, and organization of the discourse, as well as the use of rhetorical devices and linguistic features. This method helps identify patterns, themes, and strategies employed by the speakers or writers to convey their message effectively.

3. Conversation Analysis

Conversation analysis is a method that focuses on the interactional aspects of spoken discourse. It examines turn-taking, sequence organization, repair, and preference organization to understand how meaning is jointly constructed in conversation. It also investigates the use of non-verbal cues, such as gestures and intonation, to enhance communication.

4. Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical discourse analysis aims to uncover power relations, ideologies, and social inequality embedded in language use. It examines how language is used to legitimize or challenge dominant discourses and social practices. This method is often used to analyze political speeches, media representations, and institutional documents.

5. Comparative Analysis

Comparative analysis involves comparing and contrasting different instances of discourse to identify similarities and differences. It can be used to analyze how language use varies across different contexts, languages, or cultures. By examining the variations in linguistic choices and communicative strategies, researchers can gain insights into the social and cultural influences on discourse.

By employing these key methods of discourse analysis, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the complex nature of communication and its effects on individuals and society.

Applying Discourse Analysis to Conversations

1. Selecting the conversation: The first step is to gather the conversations or spoken interactions that will be analyzed. These conversations can come from various sources such as interviews, recorded speeches, or even online discussions.

2. Contextual analysis: Before diving into the conversation, it is important to consider the context in which it took place. This includes factors such as the participants involved, their backgrounds, the purpose of the conversation, and the cultural or sociopolitical influences that may have shaped the discourse.

3. Analysis of chains: Discourse analysis often involves looking at patterns of language use and how they are connected. This can be done by analyzing the chains of conversation, where one participant’s utterance leads to another participant’s response, and so on. This helps in understanding how meaning is negotiated and constructed within the conversation.

4. Critical assessment of grammar and meaning: Discourse analysis goes beyond simply analyzing grammaticalness. It also aims to uncover the deeper meaning and effects of language use. This includes examining how individuals use language to express power, negotiate identities, construct social realities, and pursue specific goals.

5. Content analysis: Another important step in discourse analysis is to analyze the content of the conversation. This involves examining what topics or themes are being discussed, how they are being talked about, and how they relate to the overall context and purpose of the conversation. This can provide valuable insights into the underlying assumptions, values, and beliefs of the participants.

6. Theory application: Discourse analysis draws on various theories and approaches from fields such as linguistics, sociology, and anthropology. Applying relevant theories can help provide a theoretical framework for understanding the dynamics and processes at work in the conversation.

In summary, discourse analysis is an interesting and valuable research method that allows for a deep understanding of conversations. By following the steps and methods outlined above, researchers can gather insightful data and analyze conversations in a systematic and rigorous manner.

Example of Discourse Analysis in Action

For example, let’s consider the discourse surrounding the royal family. Researchers may select a specific aspect, such as the oppositions between the Middleton family and the royal family. They can gather information from various sources, including interviews, speeches, and media reports, to conduct their analysis.

One way to analyze discourse is to examine the themes and oppositions present in the conversations. In the case of the Middleton family, some themes might include the critique of the royals, the withering of tradition, and the perception of the Middletons as more relatable and down-to-earth compared to the royal family. By analyzing these themes, researchers can gain insights into the social and cultural context of the oppositions.

Another aspect to consider is the grammaticalness of the discourse. How do speakers construct their sentences? Do they use complex or simple language? Are there instances of hesitation or repetition? By examining the grammatical patterns, analysts can gain a deeper understanding of how meaning is constructed and conveyed within the discourse.

Furthermore, discourse analysis can also involve a critical assessment of the content and interpretation of the discourse. Analysts can question the assumptions, biases, and power dynamics at play, and suggest alternative interpretations or perspectives. This allows for a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis of the discourse.

What is discourse analysis?

Discourse analysis is an approach to studying language and communication that focuses on examining the social, cultural, and political contexts of spoken or written conversations. It involves analyzing how language is used to construct meaning, represent power dynamics, and shape social identities.

Why is discourse analysis important?

Discourse analysis is important because it helps us understand how language is used to convey meaning and shape our understanding of the world. By studying the social and cultural contexts of conversations, we can gain insights into power dynamics, social identities, and the ways in which language is used to maintain or challenge the status quo.

What are some common methods used in discourse analysis?

There are several common methods used in discourse analysis, including conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis, and ethnography of communication. Conversation analysis focuses on the structure and organization of conversations, while critical discourse analysis examines how language is used to reproduce or challenge power relations. Ethnography of communication explores how language is used within specific social and cultural contexts.

Can discourse analysis be applied to both spoken and written language?

Yes, discourse analysis can be applied to both spoken and written language. While it is often used to analyze conversations and spoken interactions, it can also be used to examine written texts such as books, articles, or online discussions. The focus is on understanding the social, cultural, and political dimensions of language use, regardless of the medium.

By Alex Koliada, PhD

Alex Koliada, PhD, is a well-known doctor. He is famous for studying aging, genetics, and other medical conditions. He works at the Institute of Food Biotechnology and Genomics. His scientific research has been published in the most reputable international magazines. Alex holds a BA in English and Comparative Literature from the University of Southern California , and a TEFL certification from The Boston Language Institute.

How teachers can tell if a student has used ChatGPT in an essay

Experts have revealed the tell-tale signs that an essay has been written by ChatGPT and not a student.

It comes after the rise of generative AI tools, like ChatGPT, has sparked concerns about cheating among pupils in the education sector.

Repetition of words, tautology and paragraphs starting with “however” are some tell-tale features, researchers said.

The writing style of the artificial intelligence tool is “bland” and “journalistic”, according to a Cambridge University Press and Assessment study.

Researchers compared essays written by three first-year undergraduate students, with the aid of ChatGPT, with 164 essays written by IGCSE students.

These essays were marked by examiners and the undergraduates were then interviewed and their essays were analysed.

The study found essays written with the help of ChatGPT performed poorly on analysis and comparison skills compared to non-ChatGPT-assisted essays.

But ChatGPT-assisted essays performed strongly on information and reflection skills.

Researchers identified a number of key features of the ChatGPT writing style, which included the use of Latinate vocabulary, repetition of words or phrases and ideas, and pleonasms.

Essays written with the help of ChatGPT were also more likely to use paragraphs starting with discourse markers like “however”, “moreover”, and “overall”, and numbered lists with items.

The researchers said ChatGPT’s default writing style “echoes the bland, clipped, and objective style that characterises much generic journalistic writing found on the internet”.

The report said: “The students found ChatGPT useful for gathering information quickly.

“However, they considered that complete reliance on this technology would produce essays of a low academic standard.”

Lead researcher Jude Brady, of Cambridge University Press and Assessment, said: “Our findings offer insights into the growing area of generative AI and assessment, which is still largely uncharted territory.

“Despite the small sample size, we are excited about these findings as they have the capacity to inform the work of teachers as well as students.”

She added: “We hope our research might help people to identify when a piece of text has been written by ChatGPT.

“For students and the wider population, learning to use and detect generative AI forms an increasingly important aspect of digital literacy.”

From news to politics, travel to sport, culture to climate – The Independent has a host of free newsletters to suit your interests. To find the stories you want to read, and more, in your inbox, click here .

Big Tech's inside job

Silicon Valley used to reward innovation. Now it strives to sabotage it.

Received wisdom in the tech world is that big, legacy companies are bound by inertia. The more established they are, the more they get set in their ways — and the more vulnerable they are to disruption by a nimble startup . Silicon Valley was founded on the principle that newcomers can move fast and break things — leading to world-transforming innovations.

For the most part, though, that's not how it works anymore. Last year, a couple of economists found that venture-capital-backed startups almost never lead to a new company listing on a public stock exchange . They don't replace the tech giants — they just get bought by the tech giants. That's been true in Silicon Valley for at least a decade. And the vast majority of startups have been acquired by the same five companies : Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft.

Ever since Joe Biden was elected, the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department have been looking into tech mergers and acquisitions for evidence of antitrust behavior. Have the tech giants been illegally short-circuiting competition by buying up their rivals? It's a really good question — but it may be the wrong one to ask. A new paper by two leading scholars suggests that these days, Big Tech doesn't have to resort to buyouts to crush aspiring startups. Instead, they're using their considerable cash and soft power to defang potential rivals from within — a process the scholars call " co-opting disruption ."

According to the new paper — by longtime tech observers Mark Lemley at Stanford University and Matt Wansley at Cardozo School of Law — the tech giants are deploying a bunch of sneaky corporate judo moves to undercut their competitors. When an innovative threat to their business model comes along — everything from self-driving cars to virtual reality to artificial intelligence — they make a point of helping the promising little startups. They take a seat on their board of directors. They give them huge infusions of cash and access to selected data. They even lobby the government on their behalf. But all the while, the scholars found, Big Tech is actually using its seemingly benevolent show of support to protect its own interests — subtly steering the startups away from innovation, and into projects that reinforce the status quo. By working from within, they're turning the baying wolves of ambitious startups into harmless, well-trained lap dogs.

This problem isn't academic. Co-opting startups not only quashes competition — it kills off meaningful innovation. Nearly all of the self-driving-car companies have shifted away from their big-vision plans for robot taxis to small-bore stuff like adaptive cruise control. Virtual-reality companies are working on virtual meeting software for the metaverse. AI companies that might have revolutionized drug discovery or engineering optimization are instead fiddling around with search, or customer service, or college-essay writing. With fewer rivals rising to challenge the incumbents, the pace of innovation slows. Some economists even think other startups in the same lanes as the co-opted ones stop trying as hard, for fear of getting bought up and killed off by Big Tech.

This new theory of anticompetitive behavior could be a game changer when it comes to curbing the unprecedented power of the tech giants. It offers regulators a way to crack down on monopoly-minded companies before they try to buy up innovative young guns. "The traditional way of thinking about the threat to innovation from reduced competition has to do with market concentration," Wansley says. "Now we're taking it a little further. We're saying, by the time you get to an acquisition stage, that might be too late."

Lemley and Wansley start their inquiry with a question: Why have two decades elapsed since the rise of the last massive, world-dominating disruptive company in tech? Apple and Microsoft were founded in the mid-1970s; Amazon and Google in the 1990s. Facebook, the baby of the bunch, was founded in 2004. The iPhone came out in 2007. What do we have to show for the past 20 years of venture capital?

The answer appears to be: just another industry that's terrified of competition. At this point, Big Tech looks at promising startups the way evil alien empires in science fiction look at helpless planets. Sometimes they act like the Borg from Star Trek, assimilating the "biological and technological distinctiveness" of competitors to make themselves more badass. Here on Earth, buying up little guys to gain access to their technology or personnel is called an "acqui-hire," like when Facebook bought Oculus and turned it into Quest . And if the smaller company doesn't want to be acqui-hired? Well, resistance is futile.

Or sometimes, like the genocidal, xenophobic Daleks from "Doctor Who," powerful companies just straight-up exterminate their competition. In 2021 a team of researchers from Yale and the London Business School found that somewhere between 5.3% and 7.4% of mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry were " killer acquisitions ." The smaller company had a drug that might have someday threatened the big guy's category-busting pill, and: pew pew . No more little guy.

In a sense, a dominant company has no choice but to act this way. It can't really innovate anymore — not with thousands of middle managers defending fiefdoms, clients and customers bought into a product and marketing cycle, and hundreds of millions of dollars invested in technical infrastructure. Real disruption would be, well, disruptive. 

"This is not something that people write about or talk about, not something that surfaces regularly," Lemley says. "But it's in the air if you're in Silicon Valley and talking to venture capitalists. It's a problem."

And the bigger the company, the greater the financial risk of any disruption, no matter how small. Like an evil king facing a prophecy that he will one day be overthrown by a firstborn child from the forest realm, the company has to kill all t he children, just to be sure.

The thing is, mass murders of forest-realm firstborns tend to attract the attention of regulators. So what if the evil king just adopted all the babies? Raise them rich and spoiled in the castle, distract them with nubile romantic prospects, teach them to exploit the peasants? Between assimilation or assassination lies "a third possibility," Wansley says. "It's not that the acquirer is going to take the startup and totally shut the technology down. It's that they will redirect the assets to something more profitable."

That's what the tech giants are doing. How? First, by relying on Silicon Valley's network of venture capitalists as an early-warning system for would-be disruptors. VCs see trends and startups that might someday pose a threat to the established order — so-called nascent competitors — before anyone else. And there's nothing stopping them. As Lemley observes, it's part of Silicon Valley's "natural information flow" for an investor to tell a Google or a Microsoft about the promising newcomers they're backing. "If I'm a VC, how am I going to get the best deal for my client in this space?" Lemley says. "The best deal might be, sell out to the incumbent."

Once a tech giant gets a tip-off about a startup that might threaten their bottom line, they're able to strategically invest their vast cash reserves in the fledgling firm. That's precisely what's taking place with artificial intelligence: Microsoft owns 48% of OpenAI, the emerging field's undisputed leader. Alphabet and Amazon have put billions of dollars into the AI startup Anthropic. When the two AI companies were founded, Wansley says, both were "worried about what would happen if one of the tech giants started looking in their direction." Now, both are directly influenced by the very companies they set out to disrupt. And since investments from Big Tech often come with a seat on a startup's board of directors, Wansley adds, the tech giants are in an ideal position to "start nudging the company in a direction that's going to be less competitive."

Money isn't the only weapon that Big Tech can deploy to co-opt a potential competitor. Because the tech giants have amassed huge repositories of data on user behavior , they can choose with whom they share that data, and how much. Documents leaked from the discovery phase of a lawsuit against Facebook in 2015 showed that the company doled out data access preferentially , allowing its allies more access than its potential competitors. The data that Big Tech shares — or doesn't share — can play an instrumental role in shaping a startup's work.

Finally, the big companies use their clout on Capitol Hill in an effort to impose stricter regulations on the startups they're ostensibly trying to help. That's why tech giants like Meta testify before congressional hearings and ask for more government oversight for emerging threats like robot cars, or AI. They want to ensure that the rules favor them — and disfavor startups outside their zone of protection. Big Tech may hate regulation, but it doesn't mind using it to regulate any startups that might wind up threatening its dominance in the marketplace.

Co-opting startups is a clever strategy. It's way easier — and less obvious — than buying up a competitor and shutting it down. And if it doesn't work, the nuclear option is always available. "If all those other strategies fail — investments, taking a seat on the board, playing hardball with data networks, and regulation — if none of them prevents a competitor from growing, then the tech companies can buy it off," Wansley says. "It's a little subtle, right?"

People are still founding startups. But more and more, they're basically serving as farm teams for the majors.

It is — but that's what makes it so effective. Straight-up killer acquisitions are relatively easy to prove, says Florian Ederer, an economist at Boston University. "It's much, much harder to prove that a company got taken over and its focus got slightly shifted to not competing quite so intensely." It's even harder to prove that consumers suffered any ill effects. The co-opted companies don't get killed off, and they stay nominally independent. The founders and investors get rich either way.

So how do we know startups are getting co-opted by Big Tech? One proof is that some of Silicon Valley's most powerful players are starting to grouse about it. Elon Musk is suing OpenAI to keep the company from sharing its tech with Microsoft. The venture capitalist Marc Andreessen tweeted last month that Big Tech and the "New Incumbents" in AI are " lobbying as a group with great intensity to establish a government protected cartel ." You know things are bad when the biggest kids on the block start whining about being victims.

Wansley and Lemley argue that regulators need to step in — not to restrain competition, but to unleash it. For starters, they say, the feds should strengthen and enforce existing rules against "interlocking directorates," which are supposed to prevent executives from sitting on the boards of their competitors. In the 2000s, the CEO of Google was on Apple's board! These days that kind of thing gives the feds a frowny face; in 2022, the Justice Department pushed seven directors representing venture firms to resign from the boards of five of their direct competitors in space, edtech, and green energy. Microsoft currently enjoys a seat on OpenAI's board of directors. Technically it's only an observer role, without a vote. But, come on.

The primary goal of the scholars I spoke with is broader than any specific regulation: They just want to get government watchdogs to recognize the new and subtle ways that tech giants are shutting down competition and innovation. Sure, people are still founding tech companies, and their startups are still getting funded. But more and more, they're basically serving as farm teams for the majors. "The incumbents have gotten much more attuned to competitive pressures from nascent competitors, and address them more aggressively and earlier," Ederer says.

Regulators, for their part, appear to be catching on. In late January, the Federal Trade Commission ordered three titans of tech — Amazon, Microsoft, and Alphabet — to open the books on their investments in artificial intelligence. OpenAI and Anthropic received the same letter: Send over every scrap of documentation on the financial ties between them and the massive incumbents that are funding them. 

That's a promising start. If technology is going to do what it always has — solve big problems, build value, create jobs and opportunity — Silicon Valley needs as much competition as possible. "We used to have these cycles of competitive disruption," Lemley says. "Microsoft runs the world, and the internet comes up, and they missed it. IBM runs the world, and the Dells of the world come up, and they're no longer in charge. That's what we'd like to get back." Startups once unlocked a golden age of tech innovation. Perhaps, if we can find a way to keep them from being co-opted, they can do it again.

Adam Rogers is a senior correspondent at Business Insider.

About Discourse Stories

Through our Discourse journalism, Business Insider seeks to explore and illuminate the day’s most fascinating issues and ideas. Our writers provide thought-provoking perspectives, informed by analysis, reporting, and expertise. Read more Discourse stories here .

Related stories

More from Tech

Most popular

• Main content

Middle East Crisis Thousands Protest in Israel, Calling For Early Elections

• Share full article

Protesters Call for Netanyahu to Leave Office

Thousands of Israelis filled the streets outside the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, in Jerusalem on Sunday to call for early elections, in one of the most significant demonstrations against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government since the start of the war between Israel and Hamas.

Sunday’s protest in Jerusalem got underway just one day after thousands took to the streets of Tel Aviv in a separate anti-government protest , and as Mr. Netanyahu faces mounting anger from Israelis who believe he has put his political survival ahead of the broader interests of the Israeli people. It also came as he went into surgery to treat a hernia Sunday night.

The protest in Jerusalem is expected to last four days, with some demonstrators planning to stay in a cluster of tents near Parliament. On Sunday, several carried signs calling for Mr. Netanyahu’s “immediate removal” while others held posters calling for elections, saying “those who destroyed can’t be the ones to fix.”

Elad Dreifuss, a 25-year-old student, said protesting against the government in the midst of wartime was a difficult decision. But, he added, “if the government can’t live up to its responsibility, something has to change.”

Many Israelis have refrained from rallying against the government in the middle of Israel’s military campaign against Hamas.

“We held back for six months,” said Michal Begin, a physician from Jerusalem. “At the beginning, there was a sense that we had to be united for the sake of the war effort.”

But now “many of the reservists are back home, many soldiers have left Gaza,” she added. “Our need to mobilize for the intensive war effort has diminished. Now we can say that this government cannot continue to serve.”

At a news conference in Jerusalem on Sunday night ahead of his scheduled surgery, Mr. Netanyahu hit back at the criticism and demands being made by the protesters.

“Calls for elections now during the war, a moment before victory, will paralyze Israel for at least six months; in my estimate, for eight months,” he said. “They will paralyze the negotiations for the release of our hostages and in the end will lead to ending the war before achieving its goals, and the first to commend this will be Hamas, and that says it all.”

Mr. Netanyahu has come under sharp criticism for refusing to take responsibility for the failures that preceded the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on Oct. 7 and for failing thus far to strike a deal with Hamas to bring home the remaining hostages held by militants in Gaza.

But some worried that the protests could revive conflicts inside Israel that the war had temporarily smoothed over. In the months preceding Oct. 7, Israel had experienced immense domestic strife over a plan backed by Mr. Netanyahu to limit the influence of the judiciary . Huge protests against the effort had been taking place on a weekly basis, with demonstrators accusing the prime minister of trying to undermine the balance of powers and democracy in Israel.

Eitam Harel, a 23-year-old reservist from Jerusalem, watched flag-waving demonstrators gather near Israel’s Supreme Court with mixed feelings.

“Protest is a legitimate and praiseworthy thing,” Mr. Harel said. But he added: “The protests could drag us back to the negative discourse we had before the war.”

Organizers said they were hopeful the protest could shake up the Israeli political system.

“I believe Israel is facing one of the most difficult moments in its history,” Moshe Radman, an entrepreneur who is helping organize the four-day protest, said in an interview. “We need a government that will act for the betterment of the nation, not in the interest of political and personal considerations of a prime minister.”

Despite being on trial for corruption charges , Mr. Netanyahu became prime minister again in late 2022 after spending more than a year in the opposition. His critics have said that the court cases have influenced his decision-making.

Mr. Netanyahu has consistently repelled criticisms of his administration, including its handling of the war. He has asserted that his government was seeking a “complete victory” over Hamas, even though the militant group was still believed to have thousands of fighters nearly six months into the war.

As the first night of the Jerusalem sit-in wore on, some protesters set up tents to sleep in. The Israeli police said they had dispersed a crowd of protesters blocking traffic, making one arrest.

Johnatan Reiss contributed reporting from Tel Aviv.

— Adam Rasgon and Aaron Boxerman reporting from Jerusalem

Netanyahu undergoes a hernia surgery amid mounting pressure on his government.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel underwent surgery on Sunday night to treat a hernia, his office said in a statement.

Mr. Netanyahu’s office said early Monday that the surgery was successful, and that the prime minister was recovering and talking with his family.

The operation came as Mr. Netanyahu is under mounting international pressure to negotiate a cease-fire and end the war in Gaza.

Mr. Netanyahu’s office said on Sunday that he had been diagnosed with a hernia during a “routine examination” the previous night. The prime minister decided in consultation with his doctors to have the operation, his office said in a statement, adding that the procedure would take place on Sunday evening “under full anesthesia.”

“Justice Minister Yariv Levin will be temporarily taking over his duties,” the statement said. Mr. Levin is a longtime stalwart in the prime minister’s Likud party.

Mr. Netanyahu — who also underwent surgery for a hernia in 2013 — has come under increasing criticism both on the world stage and at home over how Israel is prosecuting the war in the Gaza Strip. Key allies like the United States have criticized the high civilian death toll and have made urgent calls for Israel to allow more aid into the enclave.

In Israel, protesters have been demanding that Mr. Netanyahu prioritize the release of hostages held in Gaza and strike a deal for a cease-fire.

Mr. Netanyahu was also facing sharp criticism from his far-right coalition partners over any indication that he was hesitating in the war against Hamas or in the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Hours before his scheduled surgical procedure, Mr. Netanyahu met in Jerusalem with families of soldiers held captive in Gaza.

He also delivered an evening news conference, looking pale as he hit back at criticism that he had not done enough to bring the hostages home.

“I’ve done everything in my power, and will continue doing everything, to secure their release,” he said, adding that “those who say I don’t do enough to secure the release of our hostages are wrong and misleading.”

Taking questions for nearly 20 minutes, Mr. Netanyahu also reiterated that Israeli forces would move into Rafah, the southern Gaza city where more than a million people have sought refuge. American officials have said that invading Rafah would create a humanitarian disaster and that Israel must have a detailed plan to protect, shelter and feed the civilians there.

“We are now working on addressing the question of evacuating the civilian population and providing humanitarian aid,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “That is required and vital, and it will be done.”

— Cassandra Vinograd and Johnatan Reiss

Advertisement

In a strong Easter message, the pope calls for a cease-fire in Gaza.

In a major annual message during Easter Sunday Mass, Pope Francis touched on conflicts across the globe and called for “an immediate cease-fire” in Gaza.

“My thoughts go especially to the victims of the many conflicts worldwide, beginning with those in Israel and Palestine, and in Ukraine,” he said to the tens of thousands of faithful, dignitaries, Swiss Guards and clergy filling St. Peter’s Square.

“I appeal once again that access to humanitarian aid be ensured to Gaza, and call once more for the prompt release of the hostages seized on 7 October last and for an immediate cease-fire in the Strip,” he added.

The pope also spoke about the continuing suffering in Syria because of “a long and devastating war.” He expressed concern for Lebanese people affected by hostilities on their country’s border with Israel. He prayed for an end to the violence in Haiti, an easing of the humanitarian crisis afflicting the Rohingya ethnic minority persecuted in Myanmar, and an end to the suffering in Sudan and in the Sahel region of Africa.

And in Gaza, he said, the eyes of suffering children ask: “Why? Why all this death?”

— Jason Horowitz reporting from Rome

Cease-fire negotiations resume in Cairo.

An Israeli delegation held talks Sunday in Cairo for a cease-fire in the war in the Gaza Strip and the release of hostages held by militants there, according to two Israeli officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters.

An Egyptian state-owned TV channel, Al Qahera News, had reported on Saturday that the talks would resume on Sunday, citing an Egyptian security official.

The resumption of in-person negotiations comes as the devastating war nears the end of its sixth month and as humanitarian officials are warning that only a cease-fire would allow aid groups to transport enough food and other aid into Gaza to avert a looming famine.

More than 32,000 Palestinians have been killed over the course of the war between Israel and Hamas, according to Gazan health officials, and negotiations to stop the fighting and release hostages held in Gaza have been stalled.

Bassem Naim, a spokesman for Hamas, confirmed by text that the group did not send a delegation to Cairo.

Hamas said last Monday that it had rejected an Israeli counterproposal. Talks have been at an impasse because of disagreements over the return of displaced Gazans to their homes, the permanency of any cease-fire and an Israeli withdrawal, among other points.

A third Israeli official, who also requested anonymity in discussing sensitive diplomatic matters, said that the nation’s war cabinet would convene on Sunday to discuss several issues related to the negotiations, including the question of displaced Palestinians returning to their homes in northern Gaza.

In an interview on Friday, Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas official, said Israel was refusing to allow Gazans to go back to the north en masse, and was insisting that they do so under “strict conditions and a few at a time.” He did not elaborate.

Egypt, Qatar and the United States, Israel’s staunch ally, have played the role of mediators in previous rounds of negotiations, with the two Arab nations serving as go-betweens with Hamas leaders. So far, however, a workable agreement has eluded all sides.

The mediators had pushed hard to secure a cease-fire before the start of Ramadan, but the Muslim holy month is more than half over.

Last Monday, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza and the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.” In a shift from its previous ironclad support for Israel, which has argued a cease-fire would allow Hamas to remain in power, the United States abstained from the vote and let the measure pass.

Previous talks have been held in Cairo and Doha, Qatar, where Hamas leaders have a presence, and the top mediators and Israel have met in Paris at least twice.

— Adam Rasgon ,  Aaron Boxerman and Vivian Yee

Displaced Palestinian Christians marked Easter in Gaza’s only Catholic church.

The only Catholic church in the Gaza Strip held somber Easter celebrations on Sunday for hundreds of displaced Palestinian Christians who have been sheltering within its compound since the war began nearly six months ago.

The Holy Family Church is in Gaza City, in the northern part of the strip, an area that has suffered some of the heaviest Israeli bombardment since October and where the global authority on food security says a full-scale famine is imminent .

The families who have taken refuge at the church have been “scraping to get by” for months with limited food and “almost nonexistent” medical supplies — the same as all Palestinians in northern Gaza, including Muslims celebrating the holy month of Ramadan , said Father Davide Meli, the chancellor of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem. “It’s a high holiday for all of us,” he said.

The priest of the Holy Family parish, Father Gabriel Romanelli, was in Bethlehem when the war began on Oct. 7, and the Israeli authorities have repeatedly denied him permission to return to Gaza, according to Father Meli.

More than 500 people are sheltering at the Holy Family Church and approximately 300 others are at the historic Saint Porphyrius Greek Orthodox Church nearby, Father Meli said. Together, he added, they make up the vast majority of Gaza’s tiny and tight-knit Christian population.

Both churches have been attacked during the war. An Israeli airstrike killed 18 people at the Saint Porphyrius church in October, according to the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which condemned the attack as a war crime. The Israeli military later said it was targeting a nearby building.

At the Holy Family Church in December, Israeli snipers killed a mother and daughter inside the church compound and injured seven others who rushed to help them, according to the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Church officials said Israeli rockets also hit a convent within the compound earlier that day, destroying the building’s sole generator and leaving some of the dozens of disabled people living there without working respirators that they needed to survive.

The Israeli military denied knowledge of the incident, which Pope Francis condemned as an attack on a church “where there are no terrorists, but families, children, people who are sick and have disabilities, sisters.” He called for an immediate cease-fire in his Easter address on Sunday.

— Anushka Patil

Aid is slow to enter Gaza, despite a top U.N. court ruling demanding ‘unhindered’ access.

When Christopher Lockyear, the secretary general of the aid group Doctors Without Borders, visited the Gaza Strip for five days this month, he took note of the miles of trucks waiting to deliver aid into the devastated enclave despite mounting international pressure to increase shipments.

On Thursday, the International Court of Justice in The Hague reacted to the continuing problems by ordering Israel to ensure the “provision of unhindered aid” into Gaza, using some of its strongest language yet. Israel has rejected accusations that it is responsible for delays in delivering aid, and it did so again this past week.

The amount of aid reaching Gaza has fallen sharply since the start of Israel’s war with Hamas . Months of bombs and street fighting have devastated entire neighborhoods, and experts continue to warn that Gazans unable to escape the war are facing a looming famine .

“It’s not just about the number of trucks coming in the border,” Mr. Lockyear said in an interview on Saturday. “It’s about what happens after that point. It is about the delivery. It is about sustained health care. It is about clean water.”

In its ruling on Thursday, the I.C.J., the United Nations’ highest court, called on Israel to increase the number of land crossings for aid and demanded that it ensure its military doesn’t violate Palestinians’ rights under the Genocide Convention, “including by preventing, through any action, the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance.”

Israel’s Foreign Ministry responded by saying that Israel had gone to great lengths to mitigate harm to civilians and to facilitate the flow of aid into Gaza, “including in particular food, water, shelter equipment and medicines.”

On Oct. 9 — two days after the Hamas attack into southern Israel and the start of Israel’s war in Gaza — Israel imposed what it called a “ complete siege ” of the territory. Since then, aid has been allowed into Gaza only under restrictive measures that Israel controls; those rules also apply to aid sent by the United Nations and groups like Doctors Without Borders, which is known by its French acronym, M.S.F.

This past week, Mr. Lockyear said, an M.S.F. truck carrying medical supplies and equipment was prevented from entering Gaza because it was carrying metal devices that are used to help set broken bones. “These items, which were formerly approved to go in, we have got them into Gaza previously,” Mr. Lockyear said. This time, he said, “the whole truck was turned around because these items were there, and we don’t know why.”

A spokeswoman for the Israeli authority responsible for allowing aid into Gaza said the authority could find no record or information about an M.S.F. truck being rejected or refused.

Israel has previously said that it prevents or restricts entry of what it calls “dual-use” items — materials or items that it says Hamas could use for military purposes.

Mr. Lockyear said his five-day visit to Gaza, both in the southern city of Rafah as well as Deir al Balah in the central part of the territory, underscored for him the crucial importance of not only ensuring that sufficient aid gets into Gaza and is properly and safely distributed, but also the need to end the conflict itself.

The compounding effects of the humanitarian disaster and the continued military operations came into focus, he said, during a visit to Al Aqsa Hospital in Deir al Balah on March 19, the morning after the area endured another heavy bombardment.

The wards and corridors were full of wounded victims with burns, shrapnel wounds and crushed limbs, including some in need of amputation. Meanwhile, a steady stream of weak and bony children suffering from malnutrition was being brought in.

“One of the most shocking things there is the decision that the medical teams there were having to make, in terms of: Do they give beds to trauma patients, or do they give beds to malnourished kids?” he said.

On Saturday, the director general of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, called for increased evacuations out of Gaza. With battered hospitals struggling to care for the sick and injured, he wrote in a post on X , “around 9,000 patients urgently need to be evacuated abroad for lifesaving health services, including treatment for cancer, injuries from bombardments, kidneys dialysis and other chronic conditions.”

He urged Israel to approve more evacuations, saying, “Every moment matters.”

— Raja Abdulrahim