Discourse analysis

This thesis relies on using a detailed analysis of talk in context to review, deconstruct and make sense of the data. Discourse analysis is a broad church containing numerous distinct

approaches. In this study I have taken a pragmatic approach, which is common in many discourse analysis studies. It is cross-disciplinary, drawing on sociology, linguistics and social psychology. It combines detailed analysis of the data with theories that offer the most helpful explanations for that data (Wodak, 2009). This pragmatic approach is applied within the framework of the overarching theoretical approach provided by Goffman’s frame analysis and discussed above.

Hodges et al. (2008) outline three broad categories of discourse analysis: formal, linguistic approaches which focus on the grammatical and language rules governing talk; empirical approaches, including conversation analysis, which look for similar patterns and structures in talk of a particular genre; and critical discourse analysis, including Foucauldian analysis, which focuses particularly on power structures that form institutions and social practices. These three ‘types’ of discourse analysis are very broad and loosely defined. Within each group there are distinct approaches and debates. Studies have combined these approaches in different ways to strike a balance between linguistic and intertextual analyses (Fairclough, 1992: 194). The term Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is often applied to a rather narrower approach, epitomised by the work of Ruth Wodak and Norman Fairclough, which has been criticized for being too ideological and theory-driven. Schegloff, for instance, argues that there is too much of a tendency to take an a priori stance on the significance of interactional techniques, rather

than attempting to identify the significance to the participants themselves (Schegloff, 1997). The broader sense in which Hodges et al. use the term Critical Discourse Analysis would not exclude more endogenous approaches, such as that advocated by Schegloff, but the focus is on macro-level interpretations, looking at societal discourses, structures and norms.

In this study, I use a social constructionist approach, which focuses on how participants and the subjects of their speech are constructed through talk (Burr, 1995). Social constructionist claims are not cognitive. The analysis does not aim to access participants’ beliefs, thoughts or attitudes. This type of approach has been used and developed through a number of disciplines, including sociology and discursive psychology. What these approaches have in common is treating discourse as a “domain in its own right” (Edwards, 2005). Though taking on psychological topics, the aim of Discursive Psychology is not to access a hidden world of cognition, but to treat mental constructs (such as attitudes, intention, and emotion) as “constructed by people conceptually, in language, in the course of their performance of practical tasks” (Edwards, 2005: 2).

The approach that I have taken in this thesis is heavily influenced by the work of Potter (1996). The aim of discourse analysis as Potter applies it is to “make visible the ways in which

discourse is central to action, the ways it is used to constitute events, settings and identities, and the various discursive resources that are drawn on to build plausible descriptions” (Potter, 2004: 609). In doing so, he takes discourse to be “talk and texts as parts of social practices” (Potter, 1996:105).

He proposes a form of analysis that builds on the work of three constructionist approaches: linguistic constructionism, post-structuralism and conversation analysis. In doing so, he

recognises the weakness in relying exclusively on any one of these when seeking to understand how descriptions are constructed in social interaction. Linguistic constructionism argues that people’s perceptions of the world are determined by the use of language, such that different

terms produce a different understanding of reality (see, for example, my own note about terms in section 1.3, page 14). Post-structuralism is concerned with how realist claims about the world are produced through discourse. This production draws on institutional and cultural resources to determine its realism. Conversation analysis focuses on the detailed techniques used in speech to create accounts, and seeks to understand why this is sometimes done successfully and at other times not. Potter argues that by drawing on the strength of each of these approaches, a fuller description of the way in which the world is constructed through discourse can be achieved.

He draws a further distinction between two ‘orientations’ for discourse analysis:

epistemological orientation – with a focus on the way in which accounts and descriptions are constructed – and action orientation – with a focus on the things that people are doing through their discourse in relation to one another (Potter, 1996). The three constructionist approaches he describes above (linguistic constructionism, post-structuralism and

conversation analysis) may be more or less suitable for each of these orientations.

The idea that discourse is multi-functional is central to social constructionism, and provides a range of ways in which analysts might approach data. Schiffrin argues that through our discourse we demonstrate the ability to communicate on a number of levels: expressive (the ability to convey aspects of self), social (the ability to negotiate relationships and perform social activities), cognitive (the ability to represent concepts and ideas in linguistic form) and textual (the ability to organise speech in accordance with grammatical and linguistic rules) (Schiffrin, 2008: 54). She explores how talk may orient to these aspects, and may be analysed with a focus on any of them.

A final concept that is central to Potter’s analysis is the idea that discourse is situated. An understanding of what is achieved through talk requires orientation to the context in which that talk is produced. This is an idea that lends itself to the focus on ‘definitions of the

situation’, central to the work of both Habermas and Goffman, as discussed in Chapter Two. For Potter, three levels of context are important. The first involves seeing an utterance in the context of other speech turns, as embedded within the talk of others. Secondly, attention is paid to the rhetorical orientation of speech; that is, recognising that in producing one description, argument or account, the speaker is building up a contrast with alternative positions. Finally, discourse may be situated in institutional or other settings which influence the social construction of identities and roles. In accepting the last, Potter also draws a contrast between seeing discourse as constructed in a context, and assuming a form of determinism based on the discourse setting:

“When analysing talk that takes place in a doctor’s surgery or a school classroom, the researcher will not assume that the talk is therefore necessarily medical or pedagogic (Heritage, 1984). This approach to analysis moves away from assuming contextual relevance by analytic fiat.” (Potter, 2004: 610)

As Edwards points out, “rather than being made presumptively omni-relevant by the analyst, institutional activities and identities are made relevant by participants themselves, by being invoked and oriented to, or indeed subverted and ignored” (Edwards, 2005: 2). The many previous studies of interaction in institutional settings provide a guide for the analysis by highlighting questions and parallels that help in interpreting the discourse as recorded, but do not provide the structure within which the significance of talk must be understood.

The strength of Potter’s approach is in combining different foci of analysis to understand how descriptions and accounts are constructed. He does not deny the usefulness of conversation analysis or linguistic analysis as a single focus, but by examining data on different levels he is able to produce a richer explanation of what is being achieved through talk and how. This approach has particular merit in carrying out a frame analysis. As discussed above, Goffman’s theory of frame analysis indicates that what people do in their talk has a multi- functionality which lends itself to a focus on both the action and the epistemological

orientation of talk; on both the identities or roles being constructed and the syntactical rules that inform how these are negotiated; and on the situated nature of talk.

In summary, Frame Analysis offers a way to understand what is happening in interaction, how participants relate to each other, how negotiations and conflict are managed and resolved. Potter’s discourse analysis allows us to identify those frames which are frequently tacit rather than explicitly formulated (Koeing, 2006). This method makes it possible to elucidate how frames are manifested through talk, and how a frame shapes the expectations and behaviours of participants. Potter has therefore provided a useful tool for conducting a frame analysis, where Goffman himself did not offer a clear method.