Text and discourse

This example provides us with a useful place to look again at the distinction between text and
discourse. The words "1 am having an old friend for dinner" exist as part of the text, which in
this case is the script of the film. However, we can also see the words as part of the discourse,
which includes the script, the characters, the setting and everything else that helps us make
sense of those words. We can even extend the meaning of discourse to include the audience's
knowledge of the world outside the film. The film's creators know that the audience will have
an understanding of normal human behaviour, an understanding that includes knowledge of
cannibalism as an immoral and illegal taboo. As the words "I'm having an old friend for
dinner" are received by an audience who know, by the end of the film, that Lecter is a
cannibal, the words in the text acquire new significance as part of the discourse.
Some authors use the terms text and discourse almost interchangeably. Stubbs (1983, p. 9),
for example, writes, "I do not propose to draw any important distinction between the two
terms." Others, such as Jackson and Stockwell (2011, p. 1.3.4), argue that "it is perhaps more
sensible, since both terms exist, to restrict discourse to spoken language and text to written
language." I don't like either of these practices, but it is important that readers know the
possible distinctions authors make so they can judge them for themselves and so that they are
not confused when they read different explanations for what the terms mean.
I prefer Georgakopoulou and Goutsos's (1997, p. 4) explanation that "discourse is thus a more
embracing term that calls attention to the situated uses of text: it comprises both text and
context." Discourse is text in a certain context and each text can only be understood as part of
whatever context it occurs in.
Look at 2.1, a short-spoken interaction between two people. Can you make sense of this
interaction as a text, without knowing more about the context? (Note that the same speaker
produces both utterances.)
2.1
01 A: sorry, where's the entrance? I guess I shouldn't so pest them
02 B: as thank you
You can probably make some guesses at what happened here, but without knowing more
about the context, that is, without knowing how this text existed as part of a discourse, you
can't properly make sense of it. A's first word-length TCU "sorry" (line 01) initiates the
interaction by apologising for interrupting someone, B, who is standing outside the entrance
to a university library where there is evidence of construction work being done.
The first clause-length TCU "where's the entrance?" (line 02) gives a reason for the
interruption by making a request for information. We can surmise that A asked B because B
was standing close to the library's entrance, thus making him a likely source of accurate
information. B was also wearing a high-visibility safety vest of the type often worn by
builders, marking him as a possible participant in the construction and so again marking him
as someone with possible information. This extra contextual information, B's clothes and his
location, helps explain why A chose B.
The next clause-length TCU "I guess I shouldn't go past them" (line 03) provides a reason for
A's question. When standing outside a clearly marked entrance to a building, it might seem
strange to ask where the entrance is, so A points out that he shouldn't "go past them", where
them is interpretable to A and B as warning signs, saying "No entrance." Liddicoat (2007)
uses the term accountable to describe situations like this. When we exhibit odd linguistic
behaviour, such as asking for an entrance while standing outside an entrance, we often need
to explain our odd behaviour. "I guess I shouldn't go past them" provides an account, or
reason, for the accountable question "where's the entrance?" in this bit of discourse.
B's response to the apology, question and account is not visible in the text, but of course it
was visible in the context. B pointed first at a headphone in his ear, then pointed down the
road. Pointing at the headphone suggests B was explaining the reason for not speaking.
Speaker A likely interpreted the pointing as something like "Sorry I can't answer you but I'm
listening to someone on this headphone." (I also interpreted it this way, as I too was looking
for the entrance.) The next gesture, pointing down the road, directed A's attention to a sign
that read "Entrance in back" and featured a large arrow pointing around a corner. Speaker A
made sense of the gestures in this way, as he said "thank you" and walked towards the sign.
You may wonder why I have written some 400 words over several paragraphs to explain an
interaction that took less than 10 seconds overall. This is what discourse analysts do. Real
"language in use" interactions, whether spoken or written, are fast. We make judgements
about what to say, what to write, what we are hearing and what we are reading very quickly,
but the number of judgements we make within that time is high. It took me hundreds of
words to explain a short interaction and I did not even explain everything. (Was B smiling,
for example? If so, would we make sense of his participation in the interaction differently
than if he was not smiling or if he was frowning?) Discourse analysis involves examining
language by "slowing it down" to try to explain precisely what is happening. This type of
analysis demands that we look at the words of the text, of course, but we must also account
for the context.
Text and Discourse

Text and discourse are closely related yet distinct concepts in linguistic studies. A text refers
to a coherent sequence of words, either written or spoken, that forms a meaningful unit.
Discourse, however, extends beyond the text to include its context, purpose, and
interpretation.

Stubbs (1983) considers text and discourse interchangeable, while Jackson and Stockwell
(2011) distinguish text as written language and discourse as spoken language.
Georgakopoulou and Goutsos (1997) propose a broader view, defining discourse as text in
context, emphasizing its situational and interpretative aspects.

For instance, the phrase "I'm having an old friend for dinner" in a film script is a text, but
within the discourse, considering character knowledge and audience perception, it conveys a
different meaning. Similarly, in spoken interactions, context is crucial. Without
understanding situational elements, a simple exchange like "Where’s the entrance?" may be
ambiguous. The interpretation depends on the physical setting, gestures, and shared
knowledge between participants.

Discourse analysis, as demonstrated by Liddicoat (2007), involves deconstructing linguistic

exchanges to reveal implicit meanings. It highlights how language use is shaped by social and
contextual factors. While texts provide the structure, discourse encapsulates meaning within
its real-world context, making discourse analysis a vital tool in understanding
communication.

Ultimately, discourse is essential for effective communication. It ensures that meaning is

derived not just from words but also from the social, cultural, and situational context in which
they appear.
Text and Discourse

Text and discourse are closely related yet distinct concepts in linguistic studies. A text is a
coherent sequence of words, either written or spoken, forming a meaningful unit. Discourse,
however, extends beyond the text, incorporating context, purpose, and interpretation.

Scholars offer different perspectives on this distinction. Stubbs (1983) views text and
discourse as interchangeable, while Jackson and Stockwell (2011) define text as written
language and discourse as spoken language. Georgakopoulou and Goutsos (1997) take a
broader view, arguing that discourse is text in context, shaped by situational factors.

Context plays a crucial role in discourse. For example, in a film script, the phrase “I’m
having an old friend for dinner” is just a text. However, within discourse, considering the
character’s identity and audience knowledge, it conveys a darker meaning. Similarly, in real-
life conversations, meaning depends on external cues. For instance, the question “Where’s
the entrance?” may be ambiguous unless the listener interprets the contextual elements such
as the setting and gestures.

Discourse analysis, as explored by Liddicoat (2007), examines language in real-world

contexts, uncovering implicit meanings and how communication functions. It reveals how
texts provide structure, but discourse shapes interpretation through social and situational
influences.

Ultimately, discourse is essential for effective communication, ensuring that meaning is

derived not just from words but also from their broader context.