Discourse Analysis: Pragmatic Analysis of Discourse

 Pragmatic Analysis of Discourse

by Kalsoom Jahan

Pragmatic analysis of discourse and language is an approach to understanding communication that emphasizes the importance of context in interpreting meaning. This approach recognizes that language use is about conveying information and achieving social goals, such as establishing and maintaining relationships, expressing emotions, and persuading others.

In pragmatic analysis, the context of the communication is considered, including the situation, the participants, their social identities, their knowledge and beliefs, and the cultural norms and expectations that shape their interactions. The pragmatic analysis looks at how language is used in a given context to accomplish specific communicative goals, such as making requests, giving advice, expressing opinions, or negotiating meaning.

The pragmatic analysis also examines the features of language that are used to achieve these goals, including intonation, tone, facial expressions, gestures, and other non-verbal cues. These features can significantly affect the interpretation of the meaning of language, and pragmatic analysis seeks to uncover the underlying social and cultural norms that shape their use.

Overall, pragmatic analysis of discourse and language seeks to understand how language is used in context to achieve social and communicative goals and how the context influences the interpretation of meaning. By analyzing the social and cultural factors that shape language use, pragmatic analysis can shed light on the complex and nuanced ways we communicate.

Language in Context

Language in context refers to the study of how language is used in social interactions and how the context of these interactions influences language use. It is the understanding that the meaning of language is not just determined by the words themselves but also by the social, cultural, and situational context in which they are used.

Language in context has been studied in various fields, including linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and communication studies. One of the key insights of this approach is that language use is shaped by social and cultural norms and expectations, which vary across different contexts and communities.

Current research on language in context has focused on a wide range of communicative contexts, including workplace interactions, political discourse, media discourse, and cross-cultural communication. For example, a study by Nabi and Oliver (2009) analyzed the use of language in political speeches, finding that politicians use different strategies to appeal to different audiences and achieve their communicative goals.

Another study by Gumperz (1982) analyzed the use of language in cross-cultural communication, finding that differences in communicative norms and expectations can lead to miscommunication and misunderstandings between people from different cultural backgrounds.

In addition to examining the role of context in language use, research on language in context has also examined how language uses shapes social and cultural norms and expectations. For example, a study by Cameron and Kulick (2003) analyzed the use of language in a gay community in New York, finding that language use can shape and reinforce social identities and cultural norms.

Overall, language in context is a useful framework for understanding how language is used in social interactions and how the context of these interactions shapes language use. By analyzing language use in different communicative contexts, researchers can gain insight into the underlying norms and expectations that guide communication and the social relationships and power dynamics implicit in language use.

Pragmatic analysis of discourse and Language in Context

Language in context is useful in pragmatic discourse analysis because it helps explain how language use is shaped by the social, cultural, and situational context of communication. Pragmatics is the study of how language is used to convey meaning, and language in context provides a framework for understanding how the context of communication shapes the meaning conveyed.

By analyzing language use in different communicative contexts, pragmatic analysis of discourse can gain insight into the underlying norms and expectations that guide communication and the social relationships and power dynamics implicit in language use. For example, a study of workplace discourse might examine how an organization's hierarchical structure shapes how employees communicate with each other and how language use is influenced by power relations and status.

Similarly, a study of political discourse might examine how the political context shapes how politicians communicate with their audience and how language use is influenced by the speakers' and listeners' political climate and ideologies. By analyzing language use in these contexts, pragmatic analysis of discourse can gain insight into speakers' communicative goals and strategies, as well as the social and cultural factors that shape communication.

Language in context is also useful in pragmatic discourse analysis because it helps explain how language use can be interpreted differently by different people, depending on their social and cultural backgrounds. Pragmatic analysis of discourse can examine how different contexts shape the interpretation of language use and how the interpretation of language use can differ across different communities.

For example, a study of cross-cultural communication might examine how different cultural norms and expectations influence the interpretation of language use and how misunderstandings can arise when these norms and expectations are not understood by all parties involved. By analyzing language use in these contexts, pragmatic analysis of discourse can gain insight into the challenges and opportunities of cross-cultural communication.

Overall, language in context is a useful framework for the pragmatic analysis of discourse because it provides a way to examine how language use is shaped by communication's social, cultural, and situational context. By analyzing language use in different communicative contexts, pragmatic analysis of discourse can gain insight into the underlying norms and expectations that guide communication and the social and cultural factors that shape communication.

Speech Act Theory

Speech Act Theory is a branch of pragmatics that studies how people use language to perform actions in the world. The theory proposes that utterances can be more than just a means of conveying information; they can also be used to perform actions, such as making requests, giving orders, making promises, and so on. In this way, language is seen as a social interaction and communication tool.

Speech Act Theory was developed by philosophers John Austin and J.L. Searle, who identified three types of speech acts: locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary.

1. Locutionary acts refer to the basic meaning of an utterance. It is the act of producing an utterance with a literal meaning, such as saying "I am thirsty" to convey the information you are experiencing thirst.

2. Illocutionary acts refer to the intended force of an utterance. It is the act of saying something with the intention of doing something, such as making a request, giving an order, making a promise, or apologizing. Illocutionary acts can be explicit, such as saying, "I promise to be there on time," or implicit, such as using sarcasm to criticize someone.

There are several categories of illocutionary acts:

• Assertives: Utterances that commit the speaker to the truth of a proposition, such as making a statement, giving an opinion, or making a claim.

• Directives: Utterances that attempt to get the listener to do something, such as making a request, giving an order, or making a suggestion.

• Commissives: Utterances that commit the speaker to a future action, such as making a promise, making a vow, or making a threat.

• Expressives: Utterances that express the speaker's emotional or psychological state, such as expressing thanks, apologizing, congratulating, or sympathizing.

• Declaratives: Utterances that bring about a change in the world, such as declaring someone married, declaring war, or declaring someone guilty.

3. Perlocutionary acts refer to an utterance's effects on the listener or the situation, such as persuading, convincing, frightening, or encouraging someone.

Overall, Speech Act Theory provides a useful framework for understanding how language is used to perform actions in the world. By analyzing the intended force of an utterance, we can better understand the social and communicative goals of speakers and the effects that their words have on listeners.

Speech act theory and discourse analysis

Speech Act Theory is useful for discourse analysis because it provides a framework for understanding how language is used to achieve communicative goals in different social contexts. By analyzing the illocutionary force of speech acts, we can gain insight into the speaker's intentions, attitudes, and beliefs and the social norms and expectations that shape their language use.

Discourse analysis concerns how language is used in social interactions to construct meaning and negotiate relationships between speakers and listeners. Speech Act Theory is a key tool for analyzing discourse because it helps us understand how speakers use language to perform specific actions, such as making requests, giving advice, expressing opinions, or negotiating meaning.

By examining the illocutionary force of speech acts in a given discourse, we can identify patterns of language use that reflect underlying social and cultural norms, expectations, and power relations. For example, a study of workplace discourse might analyze how requests are made and responded to and how these interactions reflect the power dynamics between different employees or between employees and management.

Speech Act Theory can also help us analyze the effects of language use on listeners, including the ways in which language can influence attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. By examining perlocutionary effects, we can gain insight into how discourse shapes social realities and power relations.

Speech Act Theory is a useful tool for discourse analysis because it helps us understand how language is used to perform actions in the world and how these actions reflect and shape social realities. By analyzing speech acts in discourse, we can better understand how language functions in social interactions and how it is used to achieve communicative goals.

Co-operative Principles

The Cooperative Principle is a communication principle proposed by philosopher H. P. Grice in 1975. The principle states that speakers and listeners must work together to achieve effective communication. According to Grice, successful communication requires that speakers make their contributions as informative, truthful, relevant, and clear as possible while listeners make reasonable efforts to understand what is said.

The Cooperative Principle has four maxims that guide communication:

1. Maxim of Quantity: Speakers should make their contributions as informative as necessary and no more informative than necessary. In other words, speakers should provide enough information to convey their intended meaning without being overly verbose.

2. Maxim of Quality: Speakers should be truthful and avoid making statements that they believe are false or for which they lack evidence. This maxim also includes the principle of relevance, which states that speakers should make their contributions relevant to the conversation.

3. Maxim of Relation: Speakers should make contributions that are relevant to the conversation and follow the conversational thread. This maxim ensures that the conversation stays focused and on topic.

4. Maxim of Manner: Speakers should make their contributions clear, unambiguous, and orderly. This maxim ensures the listener can understand the speaker's intended meaning without confusion.

The Cooperative Principle has been used in various fields to analyze communication, including discourse analysis, pragmatics, and linguistics. For example, a study by Grosz and colleagues (2010) used the Cooperative Principle to analyze the use of discourse markers in political interviews. The authors found that political interviewers used discourse markers strategically to manage the conversation and achieve their communicative goals.

Another study by Schegloff and Sacks (1973) used the Cooperative Principle to analyze telephone conversations. The authors found that participants in phone conversations often violated the Cooperative Principle by interrupting each other or failing to provide enough information to convey their intended meaning.

Overall, the Cooperative Principle provides a useful framework for understanding how speakers and listeners work together to achieve effective communication. Researchers can gain insight into the underlying norms and expectations that guide language use in different contexts by analyzing communication in terms of the Cooperative Principle.

Co-operative Principles and Discourse Analysis

Cooperative Principles are useful in Discourse Analysis because they provide a framework for understanding the underlying norms and expectations that guide language use in social interactions. The Cooperative Principle is based on the idea that communication is a cooperative activity in which speakers and listeners work together to achieve effective communication. By analyzing language use in terms of the Cooperative Principle, we can gain insight into the communicative goals of speakers and the strategies they use to achieve those goals.

In Discourse Analysis, the Cooperative Principle can be applied to a wide range of communicative contexts, including everyday conversation, workplace interactions, political discourse, and media discourse. By examining how speakers and listeners adhere to or violate the maxims of the Cooperative Principle, we can identify patterns of language use that reflect underlying social and cultural norms and expectations.

For example, a study of workplace discourse might analyze how speakers use the maxim of Quantity to provide enough information to convey their intended meaning without being overly verbose. The study might also examine how speakers use the maxim of Relation to stay on topic and avoid introducing irrelevant information into the conversation. This analysis can shed light on the underlying norms and expectations that guide language use in the workplace and how these norms affect communication and social relationships among employees.

Similarly, a study of political discourse might analyze how politicians use the maxim of Quality to avoid making statements that they believe are false or for which they lack evidence. The study might also examine how politicians use the maxim of Relevance to make their contributions relevant to the conversation and achieve their communicative goals. This analysis can provide insight into politicians' strategies to influence public opinion and how these strategies reflect underlying power relations and political ideologies.

Overall, the Cooperative Principle is a useful tool for Discourse Analysis because it helps us understand how language is used in social interactions to achieve communicative goals. By analyzing language use in terms of the Cooperative Principle, we can gain insight into the underlying norms and expectations that guide communication in different contexts and how these norms affect social relationships and power dynamics.

Conversational Implicature

Conversational implicature is a term used in pragmatics to refer to the meaning conveyed by an utterance that goes beyond its literal or explicit meaning. In other words, conversational implicature is the meaning that is implied or suggested by what is said rather than what is explicitly stated.

Conversational implicatures arise when speakers flout the Cooperative Principle, either by violating one of the maxims or by using a strategy such as irony, sarcasm, or understatement to convey a meaning that is different from what is explicitly said. The listener must then use contextual clues and their own inferential abilities to derive the intended meaning.

For example, imagine someone saying, "I have a headache," when asked if they want to go out. This statement's literal or explicit meaning is that the person has a headache. However, the conversational implicature is that they do not want to go out.

There are two types of conversational implicature: generalized and particularized.

Generalized conversational implicatures are those that are generated by the use of language in general, regardless of the specific context. For example, the maxim of Quantity suggests that speakers should provide enough information to convey their intended meaning without being overly verbose. Therefore, if someone says, "I have a dog," the conversational implicature is that they have one dog rather than multiple dogs.

Particularized conversational implicatures, on the other hand, are generated by the specific context in which an utterance is made. For example, if someone says, "I'm thirsty," the conversational implicature might be that they want a drink of water based on contextual cues such as the time of day or the activities they have been engaged in.

Conversational implicature has been studied extensively in pragmatics and applied to a wide range of communicative contexts, including advertising, media discourse, and political speech. For example, a study by Johnson and Levin (2016) analyzed the use of conversational implicatures in political speeches, finding that politicians use implicatures strategically to convey their message while avoiding direct confrontation or criticism.

Another study by Huang (2019) analyzed the use of conversational implicatures in Chinese advertising, finding that advertisers use implicatures to appeal to consumers' emotions and create a sense of intimacy with the audience.

Overall, conversational implicature is a key concept in pragmatics that helps us understand how meaning is constructed in social interactions through the use of language. By analyzing conversational implicatures in different communicative contexts, we can gain insight into the underlying norms, values, and power relations that shape language use and communication.

Conversational implicature and discourse analysis

Conversational implicature is useful in Discourse Analysis because it provides a framework for analyzing how speakers use language to convey meaning beyond their words' literal or explicit meaning. By examining conversational implicatures in discourse, we can gain insight into the underlying communicative goals, strategies, and norms that guide language use in different contexts.

In Discourse Analysis, conversational implicatures can be analyzed by examining how speakers use implicature to convey a message or achieve a specific communicative goal. For example, a study of political discourse might analyze how politicians use conversational implicatures to indirectly convey criticism or praise, or appeal to their audience's emotions without explicitly stating their position.

Similarly, a study of media discourse might analyze how journalists use conversational implicatures to convey a sense of bias or neutrality or to appeal to their audience's values and beliefs. By analyzing conversational implicatures in these contexts, we can gain insight into the strategies speakers use to achieve their communicative goals and the norms and expectations that guide language use in different communicative contexts.

Conversational implicatures can also be useful in Discourse Analysis because they provide a way to examine the power dynamics and social relationships that are implicit in language use. For example, a study of workplace discourse might analyze how conversational implicatures are used to establish power hierarchies, negotiate status, or avoid conflict.

Overall, conversational implicature is a useful tool for Discourse Analysis because it helps us understand how language is used in social interactions to convey meaning beyond words' literal or explicit meaning. By analyzing conversational implicatures in discourse, we can gain insight into the underlying norms, values, and power relations that guide language use in different contexts and how these factors shape social relationships and communication.

Politeness Theory

Politeness Theory is a social theory that explains how people use language to maintain social relationships and avoid conflict. The theory was developed by sociolinguists Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson in 1987 and has been widely applied in linguistics, sociology, and communication studies.

Politeness Theory proposes that language use is governed by two main principles: face-saving and politeness. Face-saving refers to the desire to protect one's own social identity or face, while politeness refers to the desire to maintain positive social relationships and avoid conflict.

According to Politeness Theory, people use different linguistic strategies to achieve face-saving and politeness goals, depending on the specific social context and the relationship between speakers. These strategies include positive politeness, negative politeness, bald-on-record, and off-record indirectness.

Positive politeness strategies are used to maintain positive social relationships and convey friendliness and warmth. These strategies might include using humor, offering compliments, or expressing interest in the listener's opinions.

Negative politeness strategies are used to avoid causing offense or imposing on others. These strategies might include using indirect language, hedging, or apologizing.

Bald-on-record strategies are used when speakers prioritize achieving their communicative goal over politeness. These strategies might include making direct requests, giving orders, or stating facts plainly without hedging.

Off-record indirectness strategies are used when speakers want to achieve a goal while minimizing the risk of face loss or conflict. These strategies might include using hints, sarcasm, or vague language to convey meaning indirectly.

Politeness Theory has been applied in a wide range of communicative contexts, including workplace interactions, customer service interactions, and cross-cultural communication. For example, a study by Zhang and Spencer-Oatey (2015) analyzed the use of politeness strategies in Chinese and British workplace emails, finding that the two cultures have different norms and expectations around politeness and directness.

Another study by Kasper and Rose (2001) analyzed the use of politeness strategies in customer service interactions, finding that positive politeness strategies were most effective at achieving customer satisfaction.

Politeness Theory is a useful tool for analyzing how language is used to maintain social relationships and avoid conflict. By examining the linguistic strategies used in different communicative contexts, we can gain insight into the underlying norms, values, and power dynamics that shape language use and communication.

Politeness theory and discourse analysis

Politeness Theory is useful in Discourse Analysis because it provides a framework for understanding how language is used to maintain social relationships and negotiate power dynamics in different communicative contexts. By analyzing politeness strategies in discourse, we can gain insight into the underlying norms and expectations that guide language use and the social relationships and power dynamics implicit in communication.

In Discourse Analysis, politeness strategies can be analyzed by examining how speakers use different strategies to achieve their communicative goals and maintain social relationships. For example, a study of workplace discourse might analyze how speakers use positive politeness strategies, such as offering compliments or expressing interest in others' opinions, to build rapport and maintain positive relationships. The study might also examine how speakers use negative politeness strategies, such as hedging or apologizing, to avoid conflict or minimize imposition on others.

Similarly, a study of political discourse might analyze how politicians use positive politeness strategies to build rapport with their audience or negative politeness strategies to avoid offending or alienating certain groups. By analyzing politeness strategies in these contexts, we can gain insight into the underlying social relationships and power dynamics that shape communication and the strategies speakers use to achieve their communicative goals while maintaining positive social relationships.

Politeness Theory is also useful in Discourse Analysis because it provides a way to examine the role of culture in communication. Different cultures may have different norms and expectations around politeness and face-saving, which can affect how speakers use language in social interactions. For example, a study by Scollon and Scollon (2001) analyzed the use of politeness strategies in Chinese and American workplace interactions, finding that the two cultures have different norms and expectations around politeness and directness.

Politeness Theory is a useful tool for Discourse Analysis because it helps us understand how language is used to maintain social relationships and negotiate power dynamics in different communicative contexts. By analyzing politeness strategies in discourse, we can gain insight into the underlying norms, values, and power relations that guide communication and how these factors shape social relationships and communication.

Summary

In summary, language in context refers to the understanding that the meaning of language is not just determined by the words themselves but also by the social, cultural, and situational context in which they are used. This approach is useful in the pragmatic analysis of discourse because it helps to explain how language use is shaped by the context of communication and how different contexts can lead to different interpretations of language use. By analyzing language use in different communicative contexts, pragmatic analysis of discourse can gain insight into the underlying norms and expectations that guide communication and the social and cultural factors that shape communication.

Assignment

Assignment for students:

1. Choose a communicative context that interests you, such as workplace interactions, political discourse, media discourse, or cross-cultural communication.

2. Conduct a pragmatic analysis of discourse in this context, using language in context as a framework for analysis.

3. Identify the underlying norms and expectations that guide communication in this context and how these norms and expectations shape language use.

4. Analyze speakers' communicative goals and strategies in this context and how these goals and strategies are influenced by the social and cultural factors of the context.

5. Draw conclusions about the challenges and opportunities of communication in this context and how a better understanding of language can help improve communication in this context.

6. Write a report or essay summarizing your analysis, and include specific examples of language used to support your findings.

7. Present your findings to the class or in a small group discussion, and invite feedback and questions from your classmates.

This assignment will allow students to apply the framework of language in context to a specific communicative context and gain insight into the social and cultural factors that shape communication in this context. It will also help students to develop their skills in the pragmatic analysis of discourse and to become more aware of the challenges and opportunities of communication in different contexts.

Short Questions

·         What is Politeness Theory?

·         How are Conversational Implicatures used in Discourse Analysis?

·         What is the Cooperative Principle, and how is it used in Discourse Analysis?

·         What is Speech Act Theory, and how is it applied in communication?

·         What is Language in Context, and why is it important in Discourse Analysis?

Long Questions

1.       What is the history and development of Politeness Theory, and how has it been applied in various fields of study such as linguistics, sociology, and communication studies? Provide examples of how Politeness Theory has been used in the analysis of discourse in different contexts.

2.       Explain how Conversational Implicatures are used to convey meaning beyond the literal or explicit meaning of language in Discourse Analysis. Provide examples of how Conversational Implicatures have been used in the analysis of discourse in different communicative contexts and how they can help us gain insight into underlying communicative goals and strategies.

3.       What are the Co-operative Principles, and how are they used to understand how speakers use language to convey meaning in different communicative contexts? Provide examples of how the Co-operative Principles have been used in the analysis of discourse in various contexts and how they can help us understand the underlying norms and expectations that guide communication.

4.       What is Speech Act Theory, and how is it applied in the analysis of communication? Provide examples of different types of speech acts, such as assertions, directives, and commissives, and how they can be analyzed in different communicative contexts. How can Speech Act Theory help us understand speakers' underlying communicative goals and strategies?

5.       Explain the concept of Language in Context and why it is important in Discourse Analysis. Provide examples of how Language in Context has been used to analyze discourse in different communicative contexts and how it can help us understand the social and cultural factors that shape communication. How can Language in Context be used to improve communication and understanding across different cultures and communities?

MCQs with answers

1. Which theory proposes that language use is governed by face-saving and politeness principles? A. Co-operative Principle B. Speech Act Theory C. Politeness Theory D. Conversational Implicature

Answer: C

2. What is the primary focus of Discourse Analysis? A. The grammatical structure of language B. The social context of language use C. The history of language D. The meaning of individual words

Answer: B

3. Which principle proposes that speakers should make their contribution to the conversation relevant and informative? A. The Maxim of Quality B. The Maxim of Quantity C. The Maxim of Relevance D. The Maxim of Manner

Answer: C

4. Which theory proposes that language is used to perform actions rather than simply convey information? A. Politeness Theory B. Speech Act Theory C. Co-operative Principle D. Conversational Implicature

Answer: B

5. Which type of speech act involves making a promise? A. Assertive B. Directive C. Commissive D. Expressive

Answer: C

6. Which type of politeness strategy is used to convey friendliness and warmth? A. Positive politeness B. Negative politeness C. Bald-on-record D. Off-record indirectness

Answer: A

7. What is the primary goal of using Conversational Implicatures? A. To convey information in a straightforward manner B. To convey meaning beyond the literal or explicit meaning of words C. To avoid offending or imposing on others D. To maintain positive social relationships

Answer: B

8. Which principle proposes that speakers should avoid being obscure or ambiguous? A. The Maxim of Quality B. The Maxim of Quantity C. The Maxim of Relevance D. The Maxim of Manner

Answer: D

9. Which type of discourse analysis focuses on the use of language in social interactions to convey meaning beyond the literal or explicit meaning of words? A. Pragmatic analysis of discourse B. Textual analysis C. Corpus linguistics D. Critical discourse analysis

Answer: A

10. Which theory proposes that language use is influenced by the social and cultural context in which it occurs? A. Language in Context B. Speech Act Theory C. Politeness Theory D. Co-operative Principle

Answer: A

11. Which type of politeness strategy is used to avoid causing offense or imposing on others? A. Positive politeness B. Negative politeness C. Bald-on-record D. Off-record indirectness

Answer: B

12. Which type of speech act involves making a statement or assertion? A. Assertive B. Directive C. Commissive D. Expressive

Answer: A

13. What is the primary goal of using Politeness Theory in Discourse Analysis? A. To identify the social and cultural context of language use B. To analyze how language is used to convey meaning beyond the literal or explicit meaning of words C. To examine the power dynamics and social relationships that are implicit in language use D. To understand how speakers use different linguistic strategies to achieve face-saving and politeness goals

Answer: D

14. Which principle proposes that speakers should provide just enough information to achieve their communicative goal? A. The Maxim of Quality B. The Maxim of Quantity C. The Maxim of Relevance D. The Maxim of Manner

Answer: B

References

·         Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.

·         Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). Academic Press.

·         Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.

·         Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

·         Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.

·         Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.

·         Cameron, D., & Kulick, D. (2003). Language and sexuality. Cambridge University Press.

·         Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press.

·         Nabi, R. L., & Oliver, M. B. (2009). The persuasive power of emotion in political communication: Effects of specific discrete emotions on evoked candidate evaluation, candidate likeability, and voting intentions. Communication Research, 36(6), 807-828.

·         Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.

Related Links

• Discourse Analysis Course outline
• Discourse Analysis: An Introduction
• Discourse Analysis: What is discourse analysis?
• Discourse Analysis: Grammatical Analysis of discourse
• Discourse Analysis: Pragmatic Analysis of Discourse
• Discourse Analysis: Assignment 1

You may also like the following: 

• Phonetics and Phonology: Course outline
• Phonetics and Phonology: Transcription Practice
• Phonetics and Phonology: English Vowel Sounds
• Phonetics and Phonology: Description of Consonant Sounds
• Phonetics and Phonology: Organs of Speech
• Phonetics and Phonology: Assignment 1
• Phonetics and Phonology: Basic Definitions
• Introduction to Psycholinguistics
• Introduction to Psycholinguistics: Language Development
• Psycholinguistics: The Foundation of Language
• Discourse Analysis Course outline
• Discourse Analysis: An Introduction
• Discourse Analysis: What is discourse analysis?
• Discourse Analysis: Grammatical Analysis of discourse
• Discourse Analysis: Pragmatic Analysis of Discourse
• Discourse Analysis: Assignment 1
• Communication and Presentation Skills: Practice exercise
  
• Communication and Presentation Skills: Reading Skills and Comprehension
  
• Communication and Presentation Skills: Persuasive Writing
  
• Communication and Presentation Skills: Process of Writing
  
• Communication and Presentation Skills: Course outline
  
• Communication and Presentation Skills: Principles of Writing good English
  
• Functional Communication: Capitalization and Punctuation
  
• Functional Communication: Parts of sentences, clauses, and phrases
  
• Functional Communication: Parts of Speech
  
• Functional Communication: Use of Words
  
• Functional Communication: Introduction to Communication