defining discourse
It is always helpful to start studying a subject by studying the definitions. We will also take the same strategy, i.e. starting with definitions. As suggested by the name, definitions will give a kind of guide or hints about what the subject is. In additions, definitions will also give information about the components of the thing defined. However, this is not wholly true about discourse analysis. As I always say in many occasions, it is not easy to define discourse analysis (see for example, Suherdi, 1994, 1997, 2006). This is partly because there are many different, even conflicting and overlapping perspectives, ranging from a very linguistic-oriented to socio-political one (Fairclough, 1992). In other words, discourse is different thing to scholars working in different disciplines (Brown and Yule, 1983). To give you detailed illustrations, let‟s see how many different writers use their perspective to define discourse. Widdowson (1984: 100), for example, defines discourse as “a communicative process by means of interaction.” This definition is very simple.[unique_solution] For Widdowson, discourse is a communicative process manifested through interaction. The definition can be understood to say that discourse is a process of communication. In other words, there should be “something” to be communicated; there should also be the giver or sender and the receiver of that particular “thing”, and there should be an interaction between the sender and the receiver. From the definition we can see that discourse might be in the form of spoken communication or written communication. As spoken communication, the process face-to-face, while in written communication, the sender and the receiver may be isolated by even very far distance. In the spoken forms, it can be in the forms of daily conversation such as introduction, buying a train ticket, booking a hotel, etc., while in the written form it can be writing essays, stories, and desсrіptions; or sending a letter, an sms, or even business contract. In other words, a discourse can be an spoken communication or a written one. Now, let‟s see other definitions, for example, that, which is given by Gumperz. Gumperz (1977: 17) defines discourse as “certain communication routines which are viewed as distinct wholes, separated from other types of discourse, characterized by special rules of speech and non-verbal behavior, and often distinguished by clearly recognized openings and closings.” Clearly this definition gives more detailed and specific hints on what a discourse is. For Gumperz, a discourse is not only a kind of communication, but also a routine. It should be a communication that is part of our routines. Furthermore, as explicitly stated, it should also be a distinct whole. It means that it should be easily distinguished from other routines. In other words, the difference from other routines should easily be identified usually, as Gumperz said, through clearly openings and closings. Hence, if in a meeting or an encounter, more than two discourses involved, it will be easy for us to see when a discourse starts and when it ends. In addition, it will also be easy to see when other discourse starts and when it ends. Seeing the elaboration of Widdowson‟s definition, for example, has a distinguished opening, normally in the form of greeting, e.g. “Good morning.” At its end, it normally has parting as the closing, e.g. “See you then.” Likewise, a story is opened with an orientation and ends up with a resolution. Again, look at the story. It has three parts: orientation, complication, and resolution. In the orientation, the writer tells us who were involved in the story, where they took their roles, and when it happened. In other words, it tells us the context. The second part, the complication, tells us the problems the heroine was faced with. The last part tells us how the problems were solved. With the illustrations, you are expected to have clearer picture of how the structure of a discourse distinguish a discourse from other discourses. All in all, you are expected to get initial understanding of what a discourse is. However, discourse may also take very formal and complicated forms. Fairclough (1992) identifies that in social theory and analysis, discourse has been used to refer to different ways of structuring areas of knowledge and social practice. In this perspective, discourse has been analyzed for its role as a tool of expressing ideologies, power, dominance, inequality, and bias (Van Dijk, 1998). In this definition, discourse has been defined in a very broad sense. It covers not only daily communication, but also political communication. It may cover communication of ideology, power, dominance, and even inequality and biases in society. From the three definitions discussed in the previous sections, we can see that a discourse should be a process of communication through interaction (Widdowson, 1984), distinct routines and characterized by clear openings and closings (Gumperz, 1977), and can be used to communicate political as well as daily topics.