DISCOURSE AND COMMUNICATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
ABSTRACT
Discourse and communication are two interrelated concepts, intricately interwoven and grossly assumed as overtly synonymous. This study therefore, attempts to demystify these concepts and also aim to unearth the intricate relationship that exists between them .In this regard, the study discussed in detail the theoretical frameworks of discourse and communication and consequently established the fact that they are absolutely synonymous in every respect. To this end, the methodology is Content Analysis using discourse analytic tools of cohesion and coherence.
INTRODUCTION
Language, it could be said, is as old as man but the central function of language is and remains communication. In other words, the whole essence of language boils down to communication and communication is or entails discourse. The centrality and significance of language in relation to mankind has made it the concern of linguists. Prior to modern trends in linguistics analysis, scholars were chiefly concerned with describing the structures and frameworks of languages, in this case, the traditional grammarians. However, the development of new approaches in language study shifted emphasis to functionalism, marking a quantum leap from linguistic prescriptivism to linguistic descriptivism. This brought about attempts to explain the roles or functions of language in different context, thus leading to new disciplines like discourse analysis and communication studies that view language as discourse and as a means to exchange ideas or knowledge.
Discourse can be regarded as communication because they are invariably linked such that the manifestation of one presupposes the occurrence of the other. This scenario could be likened to two sides of a coin; intricate parts of a whole. According to Wodak ‘discourse is a social performance, a relative social phenomenon that depends on a wide range of discipline…’ (49). Simply put, it refers to conversations or utterances in a social context. On the other hand, communication is an umbrella term for processes that involve the exchange of information and this includes conversations or utterances (discourse). Keyton (52) states that ‘communication presupposes discourse and all discourse forms’. In this regard, the concepts of discourse and communication will be examined in detail to further understand there interrelatedness and minor differences.
2.0 DISCOURSE & DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
The term Discourse is broad with many definitions. It ‘integrates a whole palette of meanings’ (Horvath, npn). The Wikipedia states that the word discourse is derived from the Latin word discursus which means to and from’ (npn). Literally, discourse refers to communication of thought by words or a formal discussion of a subject in speech or writing. A plausible definition of discourse is offered by Stubbs as ‘language above the sentence or above the clause’ (2). In the same vein, Tenorio (4) states that discourse ‘is the highest unit of linguistic description; phonemes, morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, sentences and text are below’. This definition offers a syntactic description or explanation of discourse. Adopting a different view, Van Dijk asserts that discourse is ‘text in context’ (3). Dijk’s position offers a sociolinguistics outlook on the notion of discourse by taking cognizance of the situation it occurs. The context is very significant because discourse does not take place in a vacuum and must be by definite participants or interactants.
Despite the various definitions offered by linguists, Schiffrin conceives that ‘discourse can be interpreted in wider range than any other term in linguistic areas, yet it has been least accurately defined’ (40). This is relatively in consonance with Richardson’s view which implies that discourse is a term that is used fashionably in various disciplines and becomes ‘one of the most well used words in academics today’ (21). In other words, the term is frequently used and adopted in other academic fields, thus leading to its diverse definitions. Paltridge (2) offers that Zellig Harris; a well known linguist was the first to use the term ‘discourse’ in 1952 during a paper he presented on Discourse Analysis. However, Discourse as a field only gained much interest during the 1970s when it eventually developed as a critique of cognitive process in communication. It is based on the notion that language needs a context for it to function properly. In this regard, Ahmad (1) stressed that it is ‘difficult to understand the linguistic items used in discourse without a context’.
The context is so relevant in discourse such that it is part of the three perspectives outlined by Van Dijk to define or critically understand discourse. They are: linguistic, cognitive and socio-cultural. First, he argues that discourse is described at the syntactic, semantic and stylistic levels (linguistics perspective). Secondly, he adds that it needs to be understood from the interlocutors’ processes of production, reception and understanding (cognitive) and finally he points to the social dimension of discourse which he sees as a sequence of contextualized, controlled and purposeful acts that occur in the society: context (socio-cultural). In sum, discourse is multidisciplinary. It is a social performance, an interpersonal activity whose form is determined by its social purpose.
Discourse Analysis is a cover term for the many traditions by which discourse may be analysed. Osisanwo (8) notes thus, ‘popular as discourse analysis is among modern linguists, coming up with a comprehensive and acceptable definition of the term has been a herculean task’. To solve this linguistics conundrum, Brown and Yule in Osisanwo provided an apt definition as ‘the analysis of discourse is necessarily the analysis of language in use’ (8). This definition implied that discourse overtly presupposes communication; therefore discourse analysis is the method of studying discourse. Stubbs in Osisanwo offered a syntax-oriented view of discourse analysis as an attempt to study ‘the organization of language above the sentence or above the clause, and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational exchanges or written texts’ (8).
Schriffin explains that ‘it is a critique of cognitivism (objective, observable/knowable reality) that developed from the 1970s onwards, although it has its roots in the turn to language in the 1950s’ (34). Crystal in Mills asserted that ‘discourse analysis focuses on the structure of naturally occurring spoken language, as found in such discourses as conversations, interviews, commentaries and speeches’ (3). This corroborates Van Dijk’s view on Discourse analysis as a modality for construction of theories in clarifying the existing relations between language use, thoughts or beliefs and social interactions. He goes further to correct the general misconception that discourse analysis can only be done on spoken language since there is an evident interaction between speakers. On the contrary, written materials can also be analysed because readers assimilate what they are reading in spite of what may seem as passive interaction between a reader and the text.
In a nutshell, Mills (135) agreed that ‘discourse analysis could be seen as a reaction to a more traditional form of linguistics (formal, structural linguistics) which focused on the constituent units and structure of the sentence and which does not concern itself with an analysis of language in use’. It is concerned with translating the notion of structure from the level of the sentence to the level of longer text.
2.1 DISCOURSE STRATEGIES
A strategy ordinarily refers to a modality, procedure or method in achieving a set goal or aim. Van Dijk conceived strategy as ‘cognitive representations of action sequences and their goals’ (79). This means that one’s desires or wants are compared to what one knows about one’s abilities, the action, context, the possibilities and probabilities of outcomes and so on. In this regard, he viewed discourse strategies as ‘intuitive notions that underlie semantic relations between sentences and in terms of rules relating sentences with semantic macrostructures’ (80). These intuitive notions bring about proper linking of ideas or semantic relations in discourse. Therefore, the basic discourse strategies are cohesion and coherence.
2.1.1 Cohesion: This refers to the grammatical or lexical linking within a text or sentence that holds a text together and gives it meaning. There are two main types of cohesion: lexical and grammatical cohesion.
Lexical cohesion involves making use of the features of words as well as the group relationship between them. There are two main types of lexical cohesion which are: reiteration and collocation. Reiteration occurs in form of repetition, synonymy or hyponymy. On the other hand, collocation deals with words that co-occur in discourse.
Grammatical cohesion centres on the logical and structural form of words used in discourse. There are four main types of grammatical devices: reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction. Reference deals with definiteness and can be divided into two: anaphoric and cataphoric reference. Substitution entails replacement of linguistic element(s) while ellipsis involves outright deletion of these elements (words).
2.1.2 Coherence: This covers the semantic aspects of discourse. Simply put, discourse is said to be coherent when it makes sense. Coherence in discourse is achieved through syntactical features, cognitive processes and semantic relations such as the use of deictic, anaphoric and cataphoric elements, implications and presuppositions.
2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a contemporary approach to the study of language and discourses in social institutions. It focuses on the way and manner language exercises its power in the society. Critical Discourse Analysis began from the assumption that systematic asymmetries of power and resources between speakers and listeners, readers and writers can be linked to their unequal access to linguistic and social resources. It hinges on the notion that language use is a social practice which does not function in isolation but in a set of cultural, social and psychological frameworks. CDA accepts this social context and studies its connections with textual structures. It also takes the social context into account and explores the links between textual structures and their function interaction within the society. The terms Critical Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) are often used interchangeably. However, the latter is often preferred and used to denote the former theory previously identified as Critical Linguistics. CDA is a relatively new approach in discourse studies, whose emergence could be traced to a small symposium of discourse scholars in Amsterdam in 1990 and headed by Van Dijk. He views CDA as;
a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. With such dissident research, critical discourse analysts take explicit position and thus want to understand, expose and ultimately resist social inequality. (23)
2.2.1 Theories in Critical Discourse Analysis
Based on Wodak’s submissions, there are about six (6) known theories of Critical Discourse Analysis. These theories are often referred to as approaches and shall be subsequently discussed.
2.2.1.1 Dispositive Analysis: According to Carbon, Foucault conceptualizes the term dispositive as a ‘decidedly heterogeneous ensemble of elements ranging from buildings to laws to scientific statements… but also for example, the users exclusive knowledge of a code’ (2). Carbon notes that one important aspect of Foucault’s definition is the importance of connections between elements. Using Jager’s taxonomy, Carbon outlines three elements which she considers as the bedrock of dispositive analysis. They are: discursive practices, non-discursive practices (actions) and physical objects. Discursive practices addresses or refers to processes by which cultural meanings are produced and understood. The basis of discursive practices is the insistence that discourse is action and not merely representation. In this regard, attention must be given to what is accomplished through discourse. For instance, proverbs are treated not just as bits of cultural wisdom but as resources available for use in certain situations. The emphasis will be on how are proverbs used and not what they mean or say. The key objective of discursive practices is to understand and develop techniques relevant to the analysis of meaningful behaviour in actual situations.
The non-discursive practices refer to actions which are accompanied by knowledge. For instance, the act of going to a particular location requires a perfect or partial knowledge of the area. The third element literally refers to the place or role of physical objects in deciphering meaning. This brings about the idea of referent in the real world. Although not all words have exact referents, which is of course one of the limitations of the theoretical aspect. Other approaches in CDA are:
● sociocognitive approach: centres on the socio-psychological aspect of CDA for explaining phenomena of social reality based on the triad of discourse, cognition and society;
● discourse historical approach: it establishes the relationship between fields of action, genres, discourses and text, focusing on issues of nationalism and national conscientisation;
● corpus-linguistics approach: a linguistic extension of CDA which deploys the use of linguistic devices for analysis;
● social actors approach: a merger of sociological and linguistic theories which explains actions in order to establish social structure; and
● dialectical-relational approach: focuses on social conflict in tandem with Marxist traditions and tries to detect its linguistic manifestations in discourse with interest on elements of dominance, difference and resistance. The approach holds that every social practice (productivity, means of production, social relations, social identities and cultural values and consciousness) has a semiotic element.
2.3 DISCOURSE AND SEMIOTICS
Chandler defined semiotics as ‘the study not only of what we refer to as signs in everyday speech but of anything which stands for something else’ (56). In a semiotic sense, signs take the form of words, images, sounds, gestures and objects. In discourse analysis, semiotics comes to play because every text is a semiotic element in every respect because it communicates with a target or general audience. Semiotics looks at the science of signs and symbols in relation to the meanings they express and discourse analysis shares this concern as well. In other words, discourse and semiotics are interrelated.
3.0 NOTION OF COMMUNICATION
The word communication was derived from the Latin word communis which denotes common. According to Keyton in Lunenburg, communication is ‘the process of transmitting information and common understanding from one person to another’ (25). This definition underscores the fact that unless a common understanding results from the exchange of information, there is no communication. Communication like any other skill requires practice. It is a process that requires the effective participation of all parties (elements) involved.
3.1 Basic Forms of Communication
The basic forms of communication are of two types: verbal and non-verbal communication. This could be in form of meetings, speeches or writings, gestures or expressions.
3.1.1 Non-Verbal Communication: This is a primitive or crude form of communication that does not involve the use of words. Rather, it uses mediums like gestures, cues, body movements, vocal qualities and spatial relationships to convey message(s). It is commonly used to express emotions like love, respect, dislike and unpleasantness. Non-verbal communication is less structured compared to verbal and often spontaneous. As it is not planned, sometimes it is considered more reliable because it reflects communicator’s true feelings. Also, it enhances the effectiveness of the message as gestures and body language are registered quicker and easier with a perceived than verbal communication. However, when combined with verbal communication, it is more effective and has greater impact(s).
3.1.2 Verbal Communication: This involves the arrangement of words in a structured and meaningful manner to convey a message or exchange information between communicators in spoken or written form. The spoken form (oral communication) is effective in reaching a focused target audience as it affords the speaker the opportunity of interacting with the perceived audience while the written form is suitable when trying to reach a large audience that is concentrated in a place or due to proximity challenges. On the whole, verbal communication does have significant advantages over the non-verbal communication. Perhaps, this explains why it is the most adopted form in recent times.
3.1.3 Oral Communication: This is the process of verbally transmitting information and ideas from one individual or group to another. With advances in technology, there are new forms of oral communication like video phones and video conferencing (teleconferencing). Other modern forms of oral communication include Podcasts (audio clips accessible on the internet) and Voice-over-internet Protocol (VoIP) which allows phone users to communicate over the internet and avoid telephone charges. Example is Whatsapp, Facebook, etc. Oral communication can be either formal or informal. Formal type of oral communication refers to presentations at business meetings or seminars, classroom lectures or speeches. The informal type of oral communication includes face-to-face conversations or telephone conversations.
3.1.4 Written Communication: This involves any type of message or information transfer that makes use of symbols or words (printed or handwritten). It is the most important and effective of any mode of business communication. Written communication is the opposite form oral communication. Examples of modes of written communication are proposals, lecture notes, seminar papers, postcards, brochures, press releases, memos, etc.
3.2 THEORIES OF COMMUNICATION
The term theory is a multi-faceted term as this implies that it means a number of things depending on the context. In other words, there is no exact definition of the word ‘theory’. Dixon defines theory as;
a provisional explanatory proposition or set of propositions concerning some natural phenomena and consisting symbolic representations of the observed relationships among (measured) events, the mechanisms or structures presumed to underlie such relationships or observed data in the absence of any direct empirical manifestation of the relationships. (240)
Similarly, Kerlinger defined theory as ‘a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions and propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena’ (36). In line with the definitions of the term theory, communication theory could be defined as a set of constructs linked together, relational statements consistent with each other that explains what happens in communication. A set of propositions that show the relationship between the various variables that are at work in the communication process. Theories are very important in communication because they provide a foundation upon which the practice of communication operates. Communication requires very sound theories for there to be an effective communication process. Hence, Kerlinger asserts that ‘there is nothing so practical as a sound theory’ (38).
In communication studies, there are many theories of communication which can be collapsed into five broad types. They are: normative theories, media and culture theories, active audience theories, sense theories and behavioural theories of mass communication.
Get Full Material
