A Social Cultural Approach to Discourse Analysis

Abstract

—Discourse analysis as a research method can be found in two major families, linguistic-based analysis (such as conversation) and culturally or socially based discursive practices. From the angle of method, discourse analysis can be divided into five categories, that is, structural analysis, cognitive analysis, social cultural analysis, critical analysis and synthetic analysis. In the paper, Social cultural analysis is chosen to be discussed as it regards discourse as interactional activities and emphasizes the social function of language. Language interaction involves all sorts of social cultural contexts; the author tries his best to make an exploration in discourse analysis from the social cultural approach so as to contribute something to the research. Index Terms—social culture, discourse analysis, context, cognition Discourse analysis can be divided into five categories from the angle of method, that is, structural analysis, cognitive analysis, social cultural analysis, critical analysis and synthetic analysis. Social cultural analysis regards discourse as interactional activities and emphasizes the social function of language. This method not only analyses word and sentence expression form and meaning, but also analyzes all kinds of social cultural factors related to discourse. This method insists that the speaker as an individual and one entity of a society not only want to transmit information or expresses thoughts, but also attempt to engage in certain social activities in different social situations and social institutions. Most discourse analysis concentrates on form, meaning, interaction and cognition, while social cultural analysis emphasizes the function of context besides what mentioned above. Since that language interaction involves all sorts of social cultural contexts, we cannot fix the meaning of language element in terms of its place in the whole sentence. We should also take the context, in which the discourse is produced, into consideration. On the different levels of the discourse, we can see that the social features of the participants plays an important role in the context, such as gender, classes, ethnics, age, social status and so on. The relationship between discourse and context is a dialectical one. Discourse is not only in and under the effect of context, but also influences, establishes or transforms context. Language has a magical property: when we speak or write we craft what we have to say to fit the situation or context in which we are communicating. But, at the same time, how we speak or write creates that very situation or context. It seems, then, that we fit our language to a situation or context, in turn, that our language helped to create in the first place. Another way to look at the matter is this: we always actively use spoken and written language to create or build the world of activities and institutions around us. However, thanks to the workings of history and culture, we often do this in, more or less, routine ways. These routines make activities and institutions, like committees and committee meetings, seem to exist apart from language and action in the here and now. Nonetheless, these activities and institutions have to be rebuilt continuously and actively in the here and now. This is what accounts for change, transformation, and the power of language-in-action in the world. We continually and actively build and rebuild our worlds not just through language, but through language used in tandem with actions, interactions, non-linguistic symbol systems, objects, tool, technologies, and distinctive ways of thinking, valuing, feeling, and believing. Sometimes what we build is quite similar to what we have built before; sometimes it is not. But language-in-action is always and everywhere and active building process.