Return to IEL Homepage Index

Department of English
Introduction to English Language Online

Unit 12: Basic Discourse Analysis

Introduction

The purpose behind this unit is to raise consciousness about the way language is used and about the way spoken interactions are managed.

Our everyday use of language is generally automatic and unconscious. This is certainly true of spoken language. We do sometimes stop and think about what we are going to say, but in casual conversation this is unusual, and when it happens our attention is generally directed towards the general drift and organisation of our contribution to the discourse, not about the detailed wording of that contribution. There are, of course, circumstances in which we give careful attention to the wording of a message. If you are about to speak in public you will probably prepare what you are going to say, and this will probably include attention to the wording. Before you undertake a socially sensitive encounter you will probably give careful thought to what you are going to say - if, for example, you are about to give an apology and explain your actions, or if you are about to offer condolences to a friend who has recently suffered a personal tragedy. But these are the exceptions which underline the rule. The rule is that the production of spoken language is normally spontaneous and unconscious.

This makes the study of spoken language very difficult. As we shall see, conversations and other speech events are highly organised. But because language comes naturally we are not aware of that organisation. We need to make a deliberate effort to recognise that our use of spoken language is highly systematic and has its own system of rules and conventions. Linguists do this by looking for regularities in spoken language and devising systems to describe those regularities. In order to do this we must distance ourselves from everyday language use in the sense that we must question closely and systematically something that we normally take for granted.

Language use is purposeful

We often think of communication simply as involving the exchange of information, but a moment's thought shows that there is a good deal more to it than this. In the first place we do not go around exchanging information gratuitously. If you were simply to go up to someone and say "It's ten past eleven" (or whatever the time may be), they would almost certainly find this disconcerting. They would perhaps reply by saying "What do you mean?" or "Why do you say that?". We do not simply interpret utterances - what people say - we ascribe purposes and intentions to those utterances and interpret them in that light.

 

Activity 1

Write your comments in the spaces provided below, then click for feedback
1. The other morning at breakfast my wife handed me a piece of bread and said "Do you think you could put this in the toaster?" How might I have responded if I had taken her literally? How do you think I did respond?
click for feedback

If taken literally, the utterance "Do you think you could put this in the toaster?" is a yes/no question and one might reply to it by saying "Yes, I think so" or "No, I don't think so." But anyone who did this would almost certainly be regarded as being deliberately uncooperative, or perhaps as trying to make a rather silly joke. Not surprisingly, I interpreted this utterance as a request. I not only put the bread in the toaster but started the toaster and, at the appropriate time, removed the toast and handed it to my wife. This is a very trivial everyday occurrence, but it illustrates quite starkly that we do not interpret utterances literally, nor do we interpret them in a vacuum. We make assumptions about the purposes which lie behind an utterance and respond in a way relevant to those purposes

A student in my Third Year Verbal Interaction class recently produced an excellent example of this kind of purposeful response. I had asked students to ask for directions on the campus and note carefully how people responded to their requests. One student stopped someone just outside the University bookshop and asked them for directions to Selly Oak station. The reply was "You don't need to go to Selly Oak. There's a University station right up there." The respondent did not reply to the actual question: "Where is Selly Oak station?", but to the assumed question: "Where can I catch a train?"

How might you interpret the following utterances?

2. It's another lovely day.
click for feedback This is almost certainly a greeting of some kind. In our society, as in most societies, if we come across someone that we know it is considered rude to ignore them. We are obliged to speak. We have, therefore, a repertoire of utterances to use in such circumstances. In British English any of these utterances (Nice day. It's another lovely day. Beautiful isn't it. etc.) focus on the weather, but they are not treated as providing information or an opinion on the state of the weather. They are interpreted as meaning I acknowledge your presence. Alternatively, directed to someone who is not known to the speaker, utterances like this might be interpreted as meaning I want to talk to you.
3. You look really nice with your hair like that..
click for feedbackThis looks like a compliment, and it may indeed be intended as such. But it may simply mean I acknowledge the fact that you have changed your hair in some way. If one of your friends appears with hair radically changed you are obliged to comment on this. Silence will probably be taken as disapproval or as showing an unfriendly lack of interest. Silence, therefore, would be meaningful. Given this, a complimentary opener may or may not be intended as a compliment. It might be reinforced as the conversation develops, but on the other hand it might be retracted.
4. How am I supposed to know?
click for feedbackThese words are often uttered impatiently and taken to mean That is an unreasonable question. They do not expect a literal answer.
5. I wonder if there's anything on telly.
click for feedbackLiterally this is a statement on the speaker's state of mind. Very often it would be taken as a question or a request - Can you please tell me if there is anything on television? But this is not the whole story. The reply Of course there is. There are programmes every day on four different channels, would not be appropriate. The implied request is Can you please tell me if there is anything on television which I might find worth watching.
6. I know what you mean.
click for feedbackThis comes very commonly from the listener in a conversation. It means Yes, I am paying attention to what you say. It may also be taken to mean I agree with you or I sympathise with you.
7. If you want a beer there's one in the fridge.
click for feedbackThis is normally interpreted as an offer. The if- clause is interesting here. Compare If it rains we'll get wet. This implies a causal relationship between rain and getting wet. It also suggests that if it doesn't rain we won't get wet. But there is no causal relationship between your wanting a beer and the existence of a beer in the fridge, and whereas one could certainly say If it rains we'll get wet and if it doesn't we won't, one could hardly say If you want a beer there's one in the fridge, and if you don't there isn't.
8. Sometimes you just buy something like that. If you need something you need it.
click for feedbackThis was uttered by the customer in front of me in the queue at a supermarket check-out. She had bought a large carton of ice-cream. When the check-out assistant tried to ring up the item the price wouldn't register. She asked the buyer how much the item cost. The customer was, I think, a little embarrassed by the fact that she had bought a slightly extravagant item without first checking the price. She said I'm sorry I don't know. Then excused herself by saying Sometimes you just buy something like that. If you need something you need it. Again the if is interesting. Literally the sentence If you need something you need it. is quite meaningless. But we have no difficulty in putting an interpretation on it.
9. It was really violent, because this friend of mine was there.
click for feedbackThis was uttered by someone who was talking about a political demonstration. It was taken to mean I know that the demonstration was a violent one because I was told as much by a friend of mine who was there. It was not taken to mean I have a friend who can be guaranteed to turn any demonstration into a violent one. This use of because, meaning I know this to be the case because..., is very common in spoken English.
10. Just try to be yourself.
click for feedbackThis utterance makes no sense if taken literally. It is uttered to reassure someone who is about to face an ordeal of some kind.

Illocutionary Acts

In 1962 the philosopher, J.L. Austin, published a book with the interesting title How to Do Things with Words. Most philosophers at that time were very interested in saying things with words and spent a lot of time discussing the relationship between words and the propositions they expressed, the meanings they carried. They were very interested in the truth or falsity of utterances and in what we mean when we say that something is true or false. Austin, however, pointed out that many of the things we say are neither true nor false, nor are they intended to be true or false. In order to support this observation he began to tease out the notion of what he called performative utterances. When the judge says to a convicted criminal "I now sentence you to five years imprisonment" he is not simply telling the prisoner something - he is actually doing something, he is sentencing the prisoner. In the same way a priest who says "I now declare you man and wife" is performing the act of marrying a couple; a dignitary who, in the appropriate circumstance, makes the pronouncement "I name this ship Birmingham University is not talking about doing something, they are actually naming a ship.

The issuing of a performative utterance Austin called an illocutionary act. He went on to point out that although it makes no sense to speak of illocutionary acts or performative utterances as true or false, this does not mean that by uttering a set form of words we are necessarily successful in carrying out an act. You cannot simply look someone in the eye and say "I now sentence you to five years imprisonment", thereby successfully sentencing them to a period of imprisonment. And you cannot simply accost a passing couple with the words "I now pronounce you man and wife" and claim that you have actually married the couple. Performative utterances might not be seen as true or false, but illocutionary acts could, said Austin, be seen as successful or unsuccessful or, to use the technical terms which Austin coined, they could be seen as felicitous or infelicitous.

The next stage in Austin's enquiry was to ask what it is for an illocutionary act to be felicitous or infelicitous. What, in other words, are the felicity conditions covering a given act? You cannot, for example, sentence someone to imprisonment unless you are the judge presiding at that person's trial. Then the person must be found guilty before they can be sentenced. The crime must be such that a custodial sentence is allowed by the law. And so on.

The argument so far is interesting, but it does not impinge greatly on our everyday lives. I have never yet sentenced anyone to imprisonment, named a ship or married anyone apart from my wife. But Austin then went on to point out that very many everyday acts are achieved by performative utterances. When you say "I promise...", you are doing something - you are making a promise. What is more your promise will not be described as true or false, it will be described as sincere or insincere or, in Austin's terms, felicitous or infelicitous.

When you make a promise it may be an explicit performative, one in which you use a performative verb. In other words you make a promise by saying "I promise...". But we also carry out many illocutionary acts which are inexplicit. When the sergeant says to the private "Get your hair cut" he is carrying out an act, in this case giving an order. In fact an illocutionary act may be not only inexplicit, but also very indirect. When the sergeant says "If I was you I would get my bleeding hair cut", the private does not report this by saying "The sergeant informed me that if he were me he would get his hair cut." Nor does he say the sergeant advised or requested him to get his hair cut. From sergeant to private the utterance "If I was you I would get my bleeding hair cut" almost certainly functions as an order.

Another scholar, William Labov, listed the felicity conditions for an order as follows:
(where S=the speaker, H=the hearer)

A. There is a certain state of affairs to be brought about and S makes some reference to it.

B. H has the ability to bring about the desired state of affairs.

C. H has the obligation to bring about the required state of affairs.

D. S has the right to ask H to take the necessary action.

                                                                                    (Labov 1972)

In the example we have given 'there is a certain state of affairs to be brought about', namely the cutting of the private's hair, and the sergeant 'makes reference to it'. The private 'has the ability to bring about the desired state of affairs' - he is, presumably, capable of going to the barber and having his hair cut. The private 'has the obligation' get his hair cut - the army has regulations about these things. Finally the sergeant 'has the right to ask the private to take the necessary action'. All the conditions are, therefore fulfilled. If, however, the sergeant had told the private to jump over a cliff then condition C would not have been fulfilled. If the 'order' to get his hair cut had been issued by a fellow private, then condition D would not have been fulfilled. Labov's conditions help to explain how we can carry out illocutionary acts indirectly. Given that condition D is fulfilled - the speaker has the right to ask the hearer to take the necessary action - then the command can be achieved by focusing on condition A:

Your hair look as if it could do with cutting.
What about getting your hair cut?

on condition B:

I don't suppose you could possibly get your hair cut.
Do you think you could get your hair cut?

or on condition C:

You're supposed to keep your hair nice and short.

 

Activity 2

Write your comments in the spaces provided and then click for feedback

1. You might ask someone to lend you a book very directly by saying "Please lend me your copy of How to Do Things With Words. Or you might ask them very indirectly by saying disingenuously "I need to consult a book called How to Do Things With Words. You don't happen to have a copy do you?" How many ways can you think of for making the same request? Do your utterances invoke the felicity conditions for a request?
click for feedback

You might say: --Could (Can you lend me a copy.,.. (Focusing on the hearer's ability to bring about the state of affairs.) --Would you mind lending me ... (Focusing on the hearer's willingness ) --I need a copy of ......(Focusing on the speaker's need )

2. Imagine you are staying in someone's house and you are uncomfortably cold. How do you get them to turn the heating up?
click for feedback

You would probably use an indirect formulation like those above: Do you find it a bit cold in here? I'm sorry, but I'm a bit chilly. Do you think you could turn the heating up a bit? You could, however, be even more indirect and pointedly put on a heavy sweater, or clasp your arms round yourself to ward off the cold.

 

Analysing Classroom Discourse

Once you accept the relationship between saying and doing you can begin to look at communicative events and see how people use language to do things. Think for a moment about what teachers and pupils do in classrooms. What do they do? How do they do it? Your own experience of the classroom will tell you that teachers ask a lot of questions and pupils are expected to answer them. How far, then, is the following typical of classroom discourse?

Activity 3

Look at the following classroom conversation in the table below. To begin with, read it through and decide whether it seems complete. Does it seems likely to be a transcript of an actual classroom interaction? (Don't worry about the right-hand column for the moment.)

Comments on completeness/incompleteness.

We have a series of questions and answers. It looks from this as if classroom discourse is made up of a series of two part units. But I don't think the sequence rings true as a sample of discourse. It is actually taken from a lesson, but some bits have been missed out.

Here are some more bits that were said by the teacher:

Sausages. Yes. - A knife, yes. - Yes I cut wood with the axe. - Chicken. Fine. - We cut metal, yes we cut metal. - It's a saw, yes - Meat. Yes. - Yes, paper. - Fish. Yes. - We cut wood with that - It's an axe, yes - A knife, yes.

Can you incorporate these into the discourse above to make it a bit more realistic? You may like to attempt to type them in appropriate places in the left-hand column. Does it still look as if classroom discourse is made up of a series of two part units? After you have amended the conversation, click on the feedback column to the right to check what the original transcript looked like.
feedback T: What's that, what is it?
feedback P: Saw.
feedback T: It's a saw, yes. What do we do with a saw?
feedback P: Cut wood
feedback T: We cut wood with that. What do we do with that?
feedback P: Metal.
feedback T: We cut metal, yes we cut metal. What's that?
feedback P: An axe.
feedback T: It's an axe, yes. What do I cut with an axe?
feedback P: Wood.
feedback T: Yes, I cut wood with the axe. What do I cut with scissors?
feedback P: Paper.
feedback T: Yes, paper. What's that cutter called?
feedback P: A knife.
feedback T: A knife, yes. What do I cut with a knife?
feedback P: Meat.

T: Meat, yes.
feedback P: Fish
feedback T: Fish. Yes. What else would you cut with a knife?
feedback P: Sausages.

T: Sausages. Yes.

feedback P: Chicken.

T: Chicken. Fine.

 

Certainly one of the commonest things that happens in the classroom is that teachers ask questions. But there is often more to it than simply asking a question. Look at this for example:

T: We cut metal, yes we cut metal. And, er I've got this here. What's that? Trevor.

You could divide this teacher turn into four parts. The first part - We cut metal, yes we cut metal - comments on the pupils' answer. The next three parts are all put together to ask a question. But the teacher first focuses the pupils' attention on what is to come: And I've got this here. Then he asks the question: What's that? Finally he nominates a pupil to answer the question: Trevor. The teacher's whole purpose is to ask a question. But in order to do that he has to hold the pupils' attention and he has to organise the turntaking in the classroom.

To summarise, we might take a small section of the discourse and divide it up as follows:

T: {What do we do with a saw? / Marvellette.//
P: Cut wood.//
T: We cut wood with that.}
T: {And, er I've got this here./ What's that? / Trevor.//
P: An axe.//
T: It's an axe yes.}

A description of this kind was developed by a research team in Birmingham in the 1970s (for a full description see Sinclair and Coulthard 1992). In technical terms they would have described the extract above as consisting of two exchanges (marked off by the brackets {.....}. In each exchange there are three moves, (marked off by double slashes //.....//). The opening move in the first exchange consists of two acts. The first act is What do we do with a saw. This asks a question and is described in the system as an elicit. The second act: Marvellette, is called a nominate. Its function is to organise the turntaking. The first move in the second exchange consists of three acts. The first - And er I've got this here. - was labelled a starter. Its function is to direct attention to or thought towards an area in order to make a correct response ... more likely. The second - What's that ? - is an elicit; and the third -Trevor- is another nominate.

Activity 4

Here is some more classroom data. Can you break it into three part exchanges? How many exchanges do you have? Can you break each exchange into three moves? Finally, do any of the moves break down into acts? You can work on the data which appears in the left-hand column below, using brackets and slashes (//) to indicate exchange and move boundaries. You may find it useful to number the exchanges. Once you've done this, check you analysis against the feedback which will appear in the right-hand column.
feedback

1. T: { Let's just have a look at these things here. / Can you tell me first of all what's this?//
P: Paper.//
T: Piece of paper, yes. //

2. {And hands up./ What cutter will cut this?//
P: The pair of scissors.//
T: The pair of scissors, yes. // }

3. ( Here we are, the pair of scissors. /And as you can see it's going to cut the paper. ) [These two sentences don't fit the analysis as we have laid it out here. in between asking two questions the teacher gives a little demonstration and comments on it as he does so.]

4. { Tell me what's this?//
P: Cigarette box//
T: Yes. }

5. { What's it made from?//
P: Cardboard.//
T: Cardboard, yes.}

6. { What will cut the cardboard?//
P: Scissors.//
T: Scissors, yes. }

7. ( Here we are./ The scissors is cutting the cardboard.[Another teacher demonstration]

8. {Now then, what's this?//
P: Piece of wool. //
(T: Piece of -....
P: Wool.
T: Wool, yes.}[Here the questioning routine is interrupted by a two part exchange in which the teacher checks on what the pupil has said.]

9. { What will cut the wool?//
P: Scissors
T: The scissors, yes. }

10. (There we are, look. / There's the wool being cut by the scissors.)[Another teacher demonstration]

11. { Now I've got a piece of what? //
P: Wood.//
T: Right. }

12. ( Will the scissors cut the piece of wood?/ /
P: NO.//
T: Let's try. No it won't. )

13. { Why won't the scissors cut the piece of wood? //
P: They weren't sharp enough. //
T: Not sharp enough.}
further comments

In general the analysis works well. There are problems we have indicated in brackets[]. Our initial presentation of the analysis did not allow for the fact that teachers do other things as well as ask questions. But when the teacher says Here we are, the pair of scissors. And as you can see it's going to do something, he is drawing the pupils' attention to the scissors and then telling them something rather than asking them something. What we have here is not a question (an elicit), but an informing act (an inform). The same applies to Here we are. The scissors are cutting the cardboard, and to There we are, look. There's the wool being cut by the scissors.

In the opening exchange you might reasonably identify the first part - Let's have a look at these things here - as directing attention to the question that is to come. This would give us a questioning move made up of two acts. In the full analysis this is not strictly true. But in the abbreviated version we are working with here this is a sensible analysis.

In the opening move in exchange 2 there are certainly two acts. The first part And, hands up is making sure that the pupils are paying attention, and also inviting them to take part in turntaking by offering an answer. The second part What cutter will cut this? actually asks the question. In the third exchange the first part directs attention, and the second part informs. The same happens in exchanges 6 and 9.

 

Extending the Description

By drawing up a detailed technical description of classroom discourse, researchers were able to identify units of description like exchange, move and act which enabled them to ask very precise questions about the nature of classroom discourse. Of course classrooms are particular places with their own rules of behaviour. But it has proved possible to extend the basic insights gained from the analysis of classroom discourse and apply them to other arenas.

Activity 5

Here is an interview between a student and her tutor. Can you divide this into exchanges using similar notations as those used in the previous activity?(e.g. //. { ) Many of the exchanges involve asking questions, but not all of them. What else is happening? Not all the exchanges have three parts. What other structures do you have?

feedback

A: { Hi
B: Hi. Good morning.}
(This is a two part exchange: a greeting is followed by a greeting.)

A: { Er, I've got a letter in my pigeon hole from erm my language person cos I've missed three classes. It said to either come and see you or er...
B: Yeah. Yeah.}
(This is another two part exchange. A informs B of something and B acknowledges.)

A: Or er. (This part is unfulfilled.)

B: {Were you off for quite a while or er...
A: I missed three lessons.
B: Right.}
(Three part questioning exchange)

{ Were you ill or er...
A: Erm yeah. I was ill for two weeks and I came in and I went home half way through the day.
B: Right.}
(Three part questioning exchange)

{Well if you're ill again you need to phone both departments really.
A: Yes, I realise that yeah.}
(Two part informing exchange)

B: {And if you're off for one day at a time or whatever, you just need to ring me. I think you should have my number.
A: Yeah.
B: ... and let me know. }
(Two part informing exchange. The acknowledging part - Yeah - is contained within the informing part.)

Otherwise if its for a longer period you need to have a doctor's note.
A: Right.
B: Erm to explain your absence.}
(Two part informing exchange. Again the acknowledging part - Right - is contained)

Have you registered with a doctor?
A: No, I haven't.}
(Two part questioning exchange. Questioning exchanges which are initiated by the teacher in a classroom contain three parts. This is because the teacher is required to confirm the pupil's answer. Questioning exchanges outside the classroom, however, may be two- or three- part exchanges.)

B: (If you do that right away then if it happens again you can get a doctor's note and then we can you know take it from there. OK?
A: OK. Thanks a lot.}
(Two part informing exchange)

B: {See you.
A: Bye.}
(Two part leave-taking exchange.)

 

Summary

We began by recognising that we produce spoken language automatically and unconsciously. We went on to show that our use of language is purposeful and that we do much more with language than simply exchange information. We saw how the philosopher, Austin, identified and defined speech acts. This led on to a discussion of language as action. We then saw how the notion of language as action could be harnessed to the description of classroom discourse. We were able to look at the structure of exchanges in the classroom in which teachers ask questions. Finally we attempted to apply the insights gained in the classroom to a rather different kind of discourse.

 

Return to IEL Homepage Index