Discourse
Nowadays, there is no consensus on the notion “discourse” from linguistic perspective (Wenxing, 2010). Thus, discourse is viewed as: a language unit beyond sentence (Stubbs 1983); “more than words in clauses” (Martin & Rose 2007: 1); “a semantic unit, a unit not of form but of meaning” (Halliday & Hasan 1976: 2) etc. From anthropological linguistics perspective, discourse is viewed as a certain type of communicative or social activities performed by either an individual or social groups (Paltridge 1997). From systemic functional linguistic perspective, discourse is defined as any unit of connected speech or writing that is longer than a sentence and that has a coherent meaning and a clear purpose (Chafe 1992: 356; Stubbs 1996: 4). From cognitive linguistic perspective, discourse is composed of cognitive phenomena (Ungerer & Schimid 1996). Sociolinguists believe discourse set limits on people’s communication, and communication regulates the actual use of discourse (Fasold, 1990). Linguistic literature defines discourse as a speech (a text, in particular) within its formation in front of the addressee's cogitative view (Aleksandrova 2016). Consequently, different definitions breed different focuses on research fields.
The term ‘discourse’ is applied in many spheres, but its notion is quite different. Discourse is sometimes defined simply as a word for language in use (Potter, 2004; Widdowson, 2007); in other cases, discourse is treated as a linguistics object or language above the sentence (Cameron, 2001; Martin & Rose, 2007). Nowadays, there is an increasing number of researchers trying to explain the notion of ‘discourse’ through unique theoretical perspectives. For example, Potter (2004) states that discourse is texts and talk in social practices. Thus, the focal point is not on language as an abstract entity namely a lexicon and set of grammatical rules (in linguistics), a system of differences (in structuralism), or a set of rules for transforming statements (in Foucauldian genealogies). Hoey (2001), similarly, treats discourse, particularly the written one, as an interactive process between authors, readers, and audiences as well. Gee (1999), who defines discourse with regard to more complex and deeper theoretical grounds, describes discourse as “socially welcomed associations between manners of using language, of thinking, valuing, acting, and interacting in the right place and at the right times with the right objects”. To put it differently, discourse, as stated above, has no generally agreed-upon definition, and confusingly many uses (Wenxing, 2010).
⠀ 1. Wenxing Yang, Ying Sun. (2010). Interpretation of 'Discourse' from Different Perspectives: A Tentative Reclassification and Exploration of Discourse Analysis. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language. Iran: Katibeh-ILCRG.
⠀ 2. Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis. The sociolinguistic analysis of nature language. Oxford: Blackwell.
⠀ 3. Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse. meaning beyond the clause (2nd Edition). London: Continuum.
⠀ 4. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
⠀ 5. Paltridge, B. (1997). Genre, frames and writing in research settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
⠀ 6. Chafe, W. (1992). Discourse: an overview. In W. Bright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics (pp. 356-358). New York: Oxford University Press.
⠀ 7. Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
⠀ 8. Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. (1996). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London and New York: Longman.
⠀ 9. Fasold, R. (1990). The sociolinguistics of language. Oxford: Blackwell.
⠀ 10. Potter, J. (1997). Discourse analysis as a way of analyzing naturally occurring talk. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research (pp. 144-160). London: Sage.
⠀ 11. Widdowson, H. G. (2007). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.