A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics David Crystal

148 discourse
argues that languages gradually select from the range of sounds used in babbling.
The term is also used in child language acquisition (especially in relation
to phonology) to describe a situation where new learning (e.g. acquiring a
new phonological rule) interferes with established ability, causing a temporary
disturbance in the development of speech production.
discourse (n.) A term used in linguistics to refer to a continuous stretch of
(especially spoken) language larger than a sentence – but, within this broad
notion, several different applications may be found. At its most general, a discourse
is a behavioural unit which has a pre-theoretical status in linguistics: it is a set
of utterances which constitute any recognizable speech event (no reference
being made to its linguistic structuring, if any), e.g. a conversation, a joke,
a sermon, an interview. A classification of discourse functions, with particular
reference to type of subject-matter, the situation, and the behaviour of the
speaker, is often carried out in sociolinguistic studies, e.g. distinguishing
dialogues v. monologues, or (more specifically) oratory, ritual, insults, narrative,
and so on. Several linguists have attempted to discover linguistic regularities in
discourses (discourse analysis or DA), using grammatical, phonological and
semantic criteria (e.g. cohesion, anaphora, inter-sentence connectivity).
Special attention has been focused on discourse markers – sequentially dependent
elements which demarcate units of speech, such as oh, well, and I mean.
It is now plain that there exist important linguistic dependencies between sentences,
but it is less clear how far these dependencies are sufficiently systematic
to enable linguistic units higher than the sentence to be established. The methodology
and theoretical orientation of discourse analysis (with its emphasis on
well-formedness and rules governing the sequence of permissible units, in
both spoken and written texts) are often contrasted with those of conversation
analysis. The term discourse grammar has also come to be used by those
seeking to develop an alternative to the generativist conception of an autonomous
formal grammar, which would incorporate principles of a functional,
communicative kind.
Some linguists adopt a broader, psycholinguistic perspective in studying discourse,
which they view as a dynamic process of expression and comprehension
governing the performance of people during linguistic interaction. Some adopt a
sociolinguistic perspective, in which the purpose or function of the discourse is
emphasized. An even broader perspective distinguishes critical discourse analysis,
a branch of critical linguistics which studies the relationship between
discourse events and sociopolitical and cultural factors. These emphases distance
the subject from ‘text linguistics’, when this is seen as the formal account of
the linguistic principles governing the structure of texts. But there is considerable
overlap between the domains of discourse analysis and text linguistics
(for example, the notion of cohesion is prominent in both), and any attempt at
a principled distinction would be premature. In semantics, some use is made
of the term universe of discourse (or domain of discourse), viz. the range of
entities, topics, situations, etc., within which a particular speech event makes
reference. In this sense, the universe of discourse of sermons, for example, will
be predictably different (usually) from the universe of discourse of commercial
advertising. See also d-linking, formulaic language, manner (2), mode (1),
tenor.