An Introduction to Applied Linguistics

was, on). Spoken discourse typically has a far lower lexical density and it is partly 
because of this lexical scarcity that some people believe that spoken language 
‘lacks content’. In fact, much of the content is ‘filled into’ the grammatical words 
by the context. For example, the grammatical words in ‘It’s over there’ can be easily 
understood by watching the speaker gesture to a flowerpot on a shelf.
Informal spoken English
Formal written English
Casual conversation:
cosy chat with a
close friend
E-mail to a friend
Letter to an
acquaintance
Conversation with
manager at work
Job interview
Public speech
Written academic
article

---

56 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
If we focus just on spoken English, it is possible to plot the differences between 
the most informal casual conversations, such as a dinner party conversation, and 
formal spoken interactions, such as doctor–patient interactions or formal job 
interviews. Table 4.1 illustrates that the differences between formal and informal 
spoken English are indicative of, but not as extreme, as the differences between 
spoken and written discourse. Overall, spoken interactions can be broadly 
categorized as interpersonally motivated or pragmatically motivated.
Informal spoken discourse
Formal spoken discourse
Primary purpose is the achievement of 
interpersonal goals: to establish who we 
are, how we relate to others and what we 
think of how the world is
Primary purpose is the achievement 
of pragmatic goals: to talk to find out 
information, to pass on knowledge, to make 
appointments, to get jobs and to jointly 
participate in practical activities
Spontaneity phenomena, such as false 
starts, hesitations, interruptions and overlap
Turn-taking more ordered
Constantly shifting topics as the goal is not 
to achieve a particular purpose
Role differentiation: there is clear role 
differentiation between interactants (for 
example, in doctor–patient interactions), 
which results in greater topic control
Conversations are open-ended and can 
continue for hours; it is in the process of 
talking that we explore our social relationships
Formal conversations are closed; once the 
task is achieved, interaction ends
Table 4.1 Differences between informal and formal spoken discourse
The significant contribution of discourse analysis is that it has demonstrated that 
both spoken and written discourse have consistent and describable structures, with 
different complexities reflecting the different functions of speech and writing in 
our culture. As Halliday (1985: 92) wrote, ‘talking and writing, then, are different 
ways of saying. They are different modes for expressing linguistic meanings.’
Language teachers will be aware that most traditional grammars derive from 
analysis of written texts. However, recently there has been the development of 
grammars that deal with both spoken and written English (Halliday, 1994; Biber 
et al., 1999; Carter, Hughes and McCarthy, 2001). Discourse analysis, provides 
valuable insights into the way we pattern and organize our speech. In every way 
possible, learners should be alerted to the special qualities of spoken language and 
encouraged to accord equal ‘validity’ to both spoken and written formulations of 
language.
In the next sections we will briefly describe the different approaches to discourse 
analysis, and then go on to discuss how discourse analysts explain semantic and 
lexico-grammatical features (the words and grammar of discourse).
Approaches to Discourse Analysis
Overview
Discourse analysts come from a number of different academic disciplines and 
the field is vast. We will not, therefore, attempt to provide a comprehensive 

---

57
Discourse Analysis
review of approaches to discourse analysis, as this has been done elsewhere (see 
Levinson (1983), McCarthy (1991), Schiffrin (1994), Coulthard (1985), Eggins and 
Slade (1997)) but will, rather, focus on those approaches that have the greatest 
relevance to applied linguistics and language education. The different approaches 
that have developed since the mid-twentieth century may be classified according 
to different criteria. The most prominent, according to disciplinary origins, are 
shown in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2 Approaches to discourse analysis according to disciplinary origins (adapted from 
Eggins and Slade, 1997).
The major contribution to the study of spoken discourse has come from 
sociology, in particular from conversational analysis. Within sociolinguistic 
approaches those relevant to the analysis of spoken discourse are the ethno-
graphy of speaking, interactional linguistics (Tannen 1984, 1989) and Labov 
and Waletzky’s (1967) research on narrative within variation theory. From 
philosophy, speech act theory and pragmatics have shed light on how people 
interpret particular utterances. Within linguistics, the Birmingham School and 
systemic functional linguistics (SFL) have both made significant contributions 
to an understanding of spoken and written discourse in English. Recently, 
perspectives have emerged from interdisciplinary connections between 
linguistics and critical and cultural theory, including critical linguistics and 
critical discourse analysis (CDA).
Although each of the approaches listed in Figure 4.2 has made a significant 
contribution to our understanding of discourse, we will review only those that are 
currently playing a major role in the various contexts of applied linguistics and 
language education.
Sociology
Sociolinguistics
Philosophy
Linguistics
Artificial intelligence
Conversational analysis
Structural–functional
Social semiotic
Speech act theory
Pragmatics
Ethnography
Interactional sociolinguistics
Variation theory
Birmingham School
Systemic functional linguistics (SFL)
SFL
Critical discourse analysis

---

58 An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
Sociology: Conversation Analysis
Conversation analysis is concerned with the detailed organization of everyday 
interaction; thus, it contrasts with much of the work in mainstream sociology 
which focuses on large-scale categories of class, gender, age groups and so on. It is 
concerned mainly with dialogic, spoken discourse of a fairly informal character. 
Conversation analysis was stimulated by Garfinkel’s (1967) ethnomethodology 
and Goffman’s (1974, 1981) frame analysis, and was developed into a distinctive 
field of enquiry by Sacks, Schegloff, Jefferson and others (Jefferson, 1972; Schegloff, 
1972; Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks, 1977; 
Sacks, 1992). Conversation analysis focuses on conversation because it offers a 
particularly appropriate and accessible resource for sociological enquiry. It favours 
fine-grain analyses, often of quite short stretches of conversation. Key questions 
for conversation analysts are:
• How do people take turns in conversation?
• How do people open and close conversations?
• How do people launch new topics, close old ones, shift topic, etc.?
• How is it that conversation generally progresses satisfactorily from one utterance 
to the next?
Turn-taking
In conversation analysis, the basic unit of speech is the individual speaker ‘turn’.
A turn is each occasion that a speaker speaks and a turn ends when another speaker 
takes a turn. This is based on social interaction in the first place rather than on 
any phonological, lexico-grammatical or semantic considerations. Conversation 
analysts are interested in how speakers achieve smooth turn-taking, and what the 
‘rules’ are for who speaks when.
In any ordinary, informal conversation, there is hardly any overlap or interruption, 
and only minimal silences between turns (on average, less than a second), if there 
is any silence at all. Sacks et al. (1974) observed that speakers are permitted to take 
turns when they are chosen or ‘nominated’ by the current speaker, or if no one is 
directly selected, they may speak of their own choice (‘self-selection’). If neither 
of these conditions apply, the current speaker can simply continue. The language 
provides us with ways of getting the next turn. These vary in appropriateness to 
different contexts (‘If I may ask a question of the panel’, ‘Can I speak?’, ‘Shut up for