Discourse analysis as a new cross discipline

CHAPTER 1
Introduction: Discourse Analysis as a
New Cross-Discipline
Teun A. van Dijk
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Discourse analysis is both an old and a new discipline. Its origins can
be traced back to the study of language, public speech, and literature
more than 2000 years ago. One major historical source is undoubtedly
classical rhetoric, the art of good speaking. Whereas the grammatica,
the historical antecedent of linguistics, was concerned with the normative
rules of correct language use, its sister discipline of rhetorica dealt with
the precepts for the planning, organization, specific operations, and per-formance
of public speech in political and legal settings. Its crucial concern,
therefore, was persuasive effectiveness. In this sense, classical rhetoric
both anticipates contemporary stylistics and structural analyses of discourse
and contains intuitive cognitive and social psychological notions about
memory organization and attitude change in communicative contexts.
After some important revivals in the Middle Ages and the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, however, rhetoric lost much of its importance
in the curricula of schools and in academic research. The emergence of
historical and comparative linguistics at the beginning of the nineteenth
century and the birth of structural analysis of language at the beginning
of the twentieth century replaced rhetoric as the primary discipline of
the humanities. Fragments of rhetoric survived only in school textbooks
of speech and communication, on one hand, and in stylistics or the study
of literary language, on the other.
Yet, parallel to this decline of rhetoric as an independent academic
discipline, new developments in several fields of the humanities and the
handsbok ocial sciences took place that would eventually lead to the emergence
of DISCOU RSE ANALYSIS, Vol. I Copyright © 1985 by Academic Press, Inc.

2 Teun A. van Dijk
of discourse analysis. First, the young revolution in Russia witnessed
concomitant new ideas in anthropology, poetics, and linguistics, an in-terdisciplinary
development known under the label of "Russian formalism."
Apart from research by literary scholars and linguists (and related new
experiments in the theory and practice of art and film), one of the (later)
most influential books of that time appeared to be Morphology of the
Folktale by Vladimir Propp (1928, first English translation 1958). Major
structural principies of early linguistics (phonology, morphology) were
here paralleled with a first structural analysis of discourse, namely, the
Russian folktale, in terms of a set of fixed thematic functions in which
variable contents of different tales could be inserted. Although it may
be arbitrary to specifically select this work in this brief historical survey,
its wide-ranging though often indirect influence in the study of narrative
in several disciplines (semiotics, poetics, anthropology, and psychology)
40 years later bears witness to its importance.
Indeed, part of the inspiration of (initially French) structuralism in the
1960s carne through the translation of this and other work of the Russian
formalists (and Czech structuralists) of the 1920s and 1930s. Lévi-Strauss'
structural analysis of culture, and especially his analysis of myths, in
part inspired by Propp and by the further development of structural
linguistics in Europe, was at the same time one of the sources for renewal
in anthropology, poetics, and other branches of the humanities and the
social sciences. These early interdisciplinary developments of the middle
1960s were often captured under the new (or rather, renewed) label of
"semiotics," to which is associated the names of Barthes, Greimas,
Todorov, and many others engaged in the structural analysis of narrative
and other discourse forms or cultural practices.
STRUCTURALISM AND THE ANALYSIS OF
TEXTS (1964-1972)
Although of course historical developments are more continuous than
is suggested here, it seems warranted to locate the origins of modern
discourse analysis in the middle 1960s. The first publication of structural
analyses of discourse in France, by some of the authors mentioned aboye,
appeared in 1964 (Communications 4): a new critical analysis of Propp
by Bremond, an application of modern linguistics and semantics to literature
by Todorov, the well-known extension to the analysis of film by Metz,
the famous rhetorical analysis of publicity pictures by Barthes, and finally,
the first introduction to the new discipline of semiotics sémiologie, also
by Barthes. This issue of Communications was followed 2 years later

1 Introduction: Discourse Analysis as a New Cross-Discipline 3
L
by another special issue (Communications 8), which was completely
dedicated to the structural analysis of narrative (with contributions by
the same authors, but also by Greimas, Eco, and Genette, among others).
Although the background, orientations, objects of research, and methods
of all these authors were still far from homogeneous, the common interest
in discourse analysis within the wider framework of a linguistically inspired
semiotics influenced and provided coherence in these first attempts.
At the same time, on the other side of the ocean, 1964 also saw the
publication of another influential book of readings: Hymes' Language
in Culture and Society. Although notions such as `discourse' or `text'
do not yet dominate the contributions to that voluminous book, there is
attention to forms of `speech', `communication', and to specific topics
such as 'forms of 'address', which would later develop into the discourse
analytical orientation of the so-called ethnography of speaking in an-thropology.
Of course, there are obvious differences between this and
the French brands of structuralism in the 1960s. Yet on both cides the
interaction between structural linguistics and anthropology appeared to
be very fruitful for the initial interest in the study of language use,
discourse, and communication forms. At the same time, Hymes' collection
not only contained the great names of linguistic anthropology (or an-thropological
linguistics), such as Boas, Greenberg, Goodenough, Lévi-
Strauss, Malinowski, Firth, Sapir, and many others, but also the first
collection of work from what soon would be called sociolinguistics (Brown,
Bernstein, Gumperz, Bright, and others). That is, not only discourse,
style, forms of address and verbal art, but also the social, cultural, and
historical contexts, and the variations of language use carne to be studied
systematically.
From a methodological point of view, it is interesting to note that the
new linguistic paradigm that also carne to be established in the mid-
1960s, Chomsky's generative—transformational grammar, hardly appears
in this book of classics. His name is mentioned only once in the index,
merely referring to a 1955 article by him, although his Syntactic Structures
figures in the general bibliography.
One other name that appears in Hymes' collection is that of Pike,
whose tagmemic approach to language and human behavior would soon
also provide background for new developments in discourse analysis
(Pike, 1967). The study of narratives in indigenous languages by him and
his followers had always been closely related to the analysis of discourse
(Grimes, 1975; Longacre, 1977).
Back in Europe again, 1964 also was the year in which the first linguistic
appeals were made in favor of a so-called text linguistics or text grammar,
first by Hartmann in a small paper, and soon by his students, such as

4 .Teun A. van Dijk
Schmidt and others in the Germanies and the surrounding countries. In
Europe, more than in the United States, the original plea by Harris (1952)
for a linguistic discourse analysis was taken seriously and eventually led
to a new, generative—transformational approach to the grammar of
discourse.
Similarly, the functional orientation of linguistics in Czechoslovakia,
such as the interest in notions such as "topic" and "comment" in the
study of functional sentence perspective, also provided a natural stimulus
to take discourse structures into account (see for instance, the work by
Palek [1968] on hyper-syntax). Ten years later, this work would be one
of the sources for American work on the functional analysis of topic and
the discourse dependence of grammar (Givón, 1979).
Another functional approach, finally, is characterized by the "systemic
grammar" developed by Halliday (1961), in which not only the thematic
organization of sentences, but also the relations between sentences and
discourse, were analyzed. This work gave rise to several studies at the
boundaries of linguistics, stylistics, and poetics, both by Halliday himself
and by Leech and Crystal. Besides poetry, conversation, advertising,
and news received systematic attention in these English studies.
From this brief historical review of the origins of modern discourse
analysis, we may draw several conclusions. First, the early interest in
systematic discourse analysis was essentially a descriptive and structuralist
enterprise, mainly at the boundaries of linguistics and anthropology.
Second, this interest primarily involved indigenous or popular discourse
genres, such as folktales, myths, and stories, as well as some ritual
interaction forms. Third, the functional analysis of sentence and discourse
structure as well as the first attempts toward text linguistics often took
place independently of or against the increasingly prevailing paradigm
of generative—transformational grammars. Both the formal sophistication
and the inherent limitations of this approach to language would decisively
influence the development of discourse analysis and other studies of
language during the 1970s.
THE EMERGENCE OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AS
A NEW DISCIPLINE (1972-1974)
Whereas the 1960s had brought various scattered attempts to apply
semiotic or linguistic methods to the study of texts and communicative
events, the early 1970s saw the publication of the first monographs and
collections wholly and explicitly dealing with systematic discourse analysis
as an independent orientation of research within and across several
disciplines.

This development, however, did not corlee alone. Part of its theoretical
and methodological inspiration was shared by other paradigm shifts in
the study of language, for example, a critical extension or refutation of
formal, context-free transformational grammars. Thus, sociolinguistics,
which had also begun to take shape in the late 1960s (Fishman, 1968),
emphasized that the theoretical distinction between competence and per-formance,
as it had been reintroduced by Chomsky (after Saussure's
distinction between langue and parole), was not without problems. Against
notions such as 'ideal speakers' and `homogeneous speech community',
sociolinguistic work stressed the importance of language variation in the
sociocultural context. Apart from variations in phonology, morphology,
and syntax, and the dependence of stylistic variation on social factors,
this reorientation also soon began to pay specific attention to discourse,
for example, the work of Labov (1972a, 1972b). His studies of Black
English also involved analyses of forms of verbal dueling among
adolescents, and his other sociolinguistic work featured analyses of natural
storytelling about personal experience. This latter research was in marked
contrast to the structuralist analysis of written stories mentioned aboye
because of its interest in spoken language and the functions of discourse
in the social context.
A second important development in the early 1970s was the discovery
in linguistics of the philosophical work by Austin, Grice, and Searle
about speech acts. Whereas sociolinguistics stressed the role of language
variation and the social context, this approach considered verbal utterances
not only as sentences, but also as specific forms of social action. That
is, sentences when used in some specific context also should be assigned
some additional meaning or function, an illocutionary one, to be defined
in terms of speaker intentions, beliefs, or evaluations, or relations between
speaker and hearer. In this way, not only could systematic properties
of the context be accounted for, but also the relation between utterances
as abstract linguistic objects and utterances taken as a form of social
interaction could be explained. This new dimension added a pragmatic
orientation to the usual theoretical components of language. This de-velopment
of linguistics toward a study of language use also appeared
in published form between 1972 and 1974 (e.g., Maas & Wunderlich,
1972; Sadock, 1974), although the integration of speech act theory and
discourse analysis was to be paid attention to only some years later.
Third, within the framework of grammatical theory itself, it was re-peatedly
maintained that grammars should not merely provide structural
characterizations of isolated sentences. This and other arguments led to
the development of text grammars, mainly in the Germanies and other
European countries. The study of pronouns and other cohesion markers,
of semantic coherence, presupposition, topic and comment, overall se-

6 Teun A. van Dijk
mantic macrostructures, and other typical features of texts, understood
as sequences of sentences, began to be studied in linguistics within a
new, integrated perspective. Though demonstrating a more formal point
of view, this new orientation shared with sociolinguistics and pragmatics
its interest for an account of the structures of actual language use. The
first books in the field, after a few articles in the 1960s, also began to
appear in the early 1970s (Dressler, 1972; Petófi, 1971; Schmidt, 1973;
van Dijk, 1972), soon leading to a more widespread, interdisciplinary
and broader study of textlinguistics and discourse, often independently
in various countries (e.g., Halliday & Hasan, 1976).
At the same time psychology and the new field of artificial intelligence
rediscovered discourse, after the early, and later influential, work on
memory for stories by Bartlett (1932). More than other neighboring dis-ciplines,
psychology and psycholinguistics developed in the shadow of
transformational grammar, so that much work was concerned with the
experimental testing of the psychological reality of, for example, syntactic
tales. The early 1970s brought not only a decisive breakthrough—con-ditioned
by Chomsky, Miller, and others--of the cognitive and information
processing paradigm against the prevailing behaviorism of the previous
decades, but also a greater interest in semantic memory and the rep-resentation
of knowledge (Carroll & Freedle, 1972; Lindsay & Norman,
1972). The extension of this cognitive research to models of memory for
texts and of processes for text understanding and production was a
natural step, and the collection edited by Carroll and Freedle, just men-tioned,
represents the first attempts in that direction. Work done by
Kintsch, Bower, Rumelhart and others marked the beginnings of the
psychological study of discourse (e.g., Kintsch, 1974) and at the same
time demonstrated renewed interest for the earlier work by Bartlett (1932).
Artificial intelligence, the computer simulation of language understanding,
at the same time started its important work about knowledge representations
in memory. Thus, Charniak (1972) in his dissertation on children's stories
showed the relevance of the vast amounts of world knowledge and the
great numbers of knowledge-activation strategies needed for the under-standing
of even very simple children's stories. Bartlett's early notion
of `schema' now had the more sophisticated company of similar notions
in artificial intelligence, such as `script', `scenario', Trame', in the work
by Schank, Abelson, Rumelhart, and others in this new sister discipline
of cognitive psychology (e.g., Schank & Abelson, 1977).
Apparently, paradigmatic shifts seldom come alone in a single discipline.
The early 1970s also witnessed important developments in sociology,
such as the increasing attention to the analysis of everyday conversations
and other forms of natural dialogue in social interaction. Here too, the

late 1960s saw a critical refutation of the prevailing macrosociological
approaches to social structure Attention was turned to everyday social
interaction and to commonsense interpretation categories at the microlevel
of social reality. This interpretative, phenomenological sociology was
advocated by Goffman, Garfinkel, and others. Work by the late Harvey
Sacks (through his unpublished lecture notes and an occasional paper)
primarily initiated and stimulated the soon quickly spreading analysis of
everyday conversation. The early 1970s also saw the first published and
widely read versions of this work (Cicourel, 1973; Sacks, Schegloff, &
Jefferson, 1974; Sudnow, 1972). With this approach, the predominant
interest in monological discourse genres (texts, stories, myths, etc.) had
found its necessary complement. Natural, mundane, and spontaneous
language' use was primarily identified with conversation and other forms
of dialogue in the social situation. People not only have implicit knowledge
of the rules of grammar, but also of the rules of, for example, turn taking
in conversation. In this respect, this conversational analysis recalls the
early structural and formal approaches to the structures of sentences and
provides the first elements of a grammar of verbal interaction. Thus, not
only was a new dialogical dimension added to the earlier monological
studies of discourse structures, but also a plea was made for the study
of language and language use as a form of social interaction, as pragmatics
or speech act theory had done in more formal and philosphical terms.
Soon this work in sociology found its way into linguistics and other
neighboring disciplines. Not only conversations but also dialogues in the
classroom or in other institutional settings received extensive interest,
such as in the discourse analysis approach to classroom talk by Sinclair
and Coulthard (1975) in England.
And finally, the circle of these independent beginnings of contemporary
discourse analysis can be closed by returning again to the discipline
where much of it had started in the first place: anthropology. The work
by Hymes, Gumperz, and others had yielded an increasingly autonomous
orientation of ethnographic research on communicative events, labeled
the "ethnography of speaking" (or the "ethnography of communication").
Under the inspiration of the influential and programmatic work of Hymes
in the 1960s, new theories and fieldwork were collected in two readers
(Bauman & Scherzer, 1974; Gumperz & Hymes, 1972). The boundaries
between the sociolinguistics of discourse and this new branch of an-thropology
were fuzzy: the study of "real" language use in the sociocultural
context no longer stopped at form of address, rituals, or myth, but also
began to pay attention to the mundane forms of talk in different cultures,
such as greetings, spontaneous storytelling, formal meetings, verbal dueling,
and other forms of communication and verbal interaction.

8 Teun A. van Dijk
CONCLUSION
This brief survey of the emergence of new directions in the study of
language use and discourse at the beginning of the 1970s shows that
there was both continuity and change with respect to the previous decade.
Formal sentence grammars had been challenged from several sides and
were at least complemented with new ideas about language use, linguistic
variation, speech acts, conversation, other dialogues, text structures,
communicative events, and their cognitive and social contexts. Most of
the paradigmatic shifts in the various language disciplines also brought
a natural extension toward discourse phenomena. And soon, this common
interest in the respective disciplines led to a more integrated, autonomous,
and interdisciplinary study of discourse in the following decade (1974-
1984). Work during this decade is exemplified and reviewed in the respective
chapters of this first volume of the Handbook of Discourse Analysis,
which itself may be interpreted as a signal of the independence and
autonomy of the new cross-discipline.
Whereas the respective chapters of this volume pay detailed attention
to the major notions, theories, results, and some of the historical background
of current discourse analysis, this introduction has shown the sources,
contacts, and early interdisciplinary work of the 1960s that led to the
current approaches that emerged ín several countries at the beginning
of the 1970s. Much of the still burgeoning variety of orientations, methods,
characteristic objects of research (e.g., genres of discourse or dímensions
of context), and styles of theory formation and descriptíon finds its origin
in the different historical backgrounds of each of the disciplines engaged.
Thus, conversational analysis and interaction theories in many respects
had to develop as an anti-(macro-)sociology, text grammar as a antisentence
grammar, speech act theory as an antigrammar tout court, and much of
current psychology and sociology of language as antilinguistics. Much
formal rigor and theoretical sophistication had to be temporarily bracketed
out in order to formulate completely new approaches, to set out new
areas of research, and to introduce new and sometimes strange notions.
But from the initial paradigm shifts briefly described aboye, we now
seem to have entered the stage of normal scíence for the field of discourse
analysis. The chapters of this volume provide ample evidence for this
view of the field, as well as introductions and a description of the current
state of insights into the structures and functions of díscourse and its
contexts. Yet 10 or maybe 20 years after the first modern studies of
discourse is not much, and ít will therefore also be apparent that the
discipline is still in the first stage of its normal development.
In the meantime, the four or five central disciplines of discourse have
received company elsewhere. In the field of law studies it has been

realized that much of its object domain, such as laws, legal (inter-)action,
and legal documents, has a textual or dialogical nature. The same holds
for history and historiography, of which both the sources and the products
are mostly texts and, more recently, also oral discourse forms. The study
of mass communication, dealing with mass-mediated messages and their
conditions of production and reception, also is developing from early
content analysis to more sophisticated discourse analysis of media texts
and talk. Here, as well as in semiotics, the relation between discourse
and pictures, photographs, or film also are systematically analyzed. Poetics,
interested in literary texts but also in dramatic dialogue, has been closely
associated with the structuralist beginnings of discourse analysis and
continues to be influenced by it. Clinical psychology has paid attention
to therapeutic discourse, and social psychology to the interaction of
cognitive and social aspects of persuasive communication and attitude
change, to the situational analysis of verbal interaction, and to the
fdoisrcmoautrisoen- mofe dsoiactieadl representations and atributions.
It is not difficult to continue this list of social sciences that have, since
the 1970s, paid attention to text and talk. Some of these disciplines are
also presented in this volume; others—such as the political analysis of
discourse—receive more specific attention in later volumes. It may be
expected, thus, that in the 1980s discourse analysis will on the one hand
lead to further integration and expansion, while on the other hand it will
differentiate into inevitable specialization.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
This list of references is merely a selective bibliography of the major works and names
of the people mentioned in this historical survey of the emergence of discourse analysis.
Further references and bibliographic details of the historical backgrounds in the respective
disciplines can be found in the following chapters.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. London: Cambridge University Press.
Bauman, R., & Sherzer, J. (Eds.). (1974). Explorations in the ethnography of speaking.
London: Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, J. S., & Freedle, R. O. (Eds.). (1972). Language comprehension and the acquisition
of knowledge. Washington, D.C.: Winston.
Charniak, E. (1972). Towards a model of children's story comprehension. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Cicourel, A. V. (1973). Cognitive sociology. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Communications 4 (1964). Recherches sémiologiques. Paris: Seuil.
Communications 8 (1966). Recherches sémiologiques. L'analyse structurale du récit. Paris:
Seuil.
Dressler, W. U. (1972). Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (new version,
with R. de Beaugrande, published as Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman,
1981).

10 Teun A. van Dijk
Fishman, J. (Ed.). (1968). Readings in the sociology of language. The Hague: Mouton.
Givón, T. (Ed.). (1979). Discourse and syntax. Syntax and semantics (Vol. 12). New York:
Academic Press.
Grimes, J. E. (1975). The Thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
Gumperz, J. D., & Hymes, D. (Eds.). (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics. The ethnography
of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar, Word, 17, 241-292.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Harris, Z. S. (1952). Discourse analysis. Language, 28, 1-30.
Hartmann, P. (1964). Text, Texte, Klassen von Texten. Bogawus, 2, 15-25.
Hymes, D. (Ed.). (1964). Language in culture and society. New York: Harper & Row.
Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, Ni: Erlbaum.
Labov, W. (1972a). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Labov, W. (1972b). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. (1972). Human information processing. New York:
Academic Press.
Longacre, R. E. (Ed.). (1977). Discourse grammar (Vols. 1-3). Dallas: Summer Institute
of Linguistics.
Maas, U., & Wunderlich, D. (1972). Pragmatik und sprachliches Handeln. Frankfurt:
Athenaeum.
Palek, B. (1968). Cross-reference. Prague: Charles University.
Petófi, J. S. (1971). Transformationsgrammatiken und eine ko-textuelle Texttheorie. Frankfurt:
Athenaeum.
Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of human behavior. The Hague:
Mouton.
Propp, V. (1958) Morphology of the folktale. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
(Original work published 1928)
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic of turntaking for
conversation. Language, 50 696-735.
Sadock, J. M. (1974). Towards a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic
Press.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Schmidt, S. J. (1973). Texttheorie. Munich: Fink (UTB).
Sinclair, J. McH., Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. The English
used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Sudnow, D. (Ed.). (1972). Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (1972). Some aspects of text grammars. The Hague: Mouton.

Discourse analysis as a new cross discipline

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Discourse analysis as a new cross discipline (20)

More from Abdullah Saleem (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Discourse analysis as a new cross discipline