Abstract
In the wake of a revolutionary change of interest from language form to language function, attention of many language scholars have been shifted from the structural pattern of language to the function the language is used to perform in social discourses. The present study is one of such endeavours, and essentially explored the fields of Discourse and Stylistics by pointing out their different, but related, methods of text analysis. A brief analysis of an excerpt of President Muhammadu Buhari’s Democracy Day Speech of 29th May, 2015 revealed that Discourse investigates more and reproduces more meaning from a textthan Stylistics. Stylistics is only a tool used in Discourse
1.0. Introduction
Prior to the advent of Discourse Analysis and Stylistics, the preoccupation of many linguists was basically the study of the structural pattern and form of language without much regard for the context and other features that shape meaning. Over the years however, the attention of language scholars has been shifted from language form to language function. Consequently, many scholars in humanities and social sciences have become keenly interested in the study of Discourse and Stylistics (Olateju 7).
Discourse and Stylistics are two different but closely related linguistic disciplines that are inseparable. The relationship between them can be likened to the proverbial controversy in the actual maternity of the hen and the egg. This is because it is very difficult to draw a line of demarcation between Discourse and Stylistics. While on the one hand, there is hardly any exercise on Discourse without a bit of Stylistic input, Discourse,on the other hand, "is broader in its analysis (Aziz n.pag).While Discourse is essentially communication, Stylistics on the other hand is concerned with the study of the pattern and style of what is communicated. In this study, we shall attempt to discuss Discourse and Stylistics and explore the various ways each of them approach analysis of a given text. To do this properly, we shall analyze paragraph five of President Muhammadu Buhari’s Democracy Day Speech on 29th May, 2016 to reveal thelevels or methods of text analysis in Discourse and Stylistics.
2.0. What is Discourse?
The word 'discourse' comes from Latin 'discursus' which denotes 'conversation, speech'(Taiwo 14). According to Johnstone, it is "actual instances ofcommunication in the medium of language" (2). Discourse is a discipline that has no stable definition. This is because so many scholars have given varied definitions to it based on their views of the subject matter. The common definition is given by Stubbs. He describes Discourse as "language above the sentence or above the clause" (1). Discourse is meaning communicated far above what is said. The study of Discourse is indeed the "study of many aspects of language use (Fasold 65). Discourse is essentially the study of language in use.
The term Discourse was first used by Zellig Harris in a paper he presented in 1952.As a structural linguist, he did not use Discourse in the sense that is commonly used now. He used it only as a sequence of utterances. It was in the late 1960s that scholars began to use the term as an approach to the study of social interaction. (Taiwo 16). Discourse was fully developed in the 1970s as a critique of cognitive process in communication. It is based on the notion that language needs a context for it to function properly. Thus, it becomes very impossible to understand the linguistic items used in discourse without a context (Ahmad 1).
Discourse is viewed as social performance or a social action. It is a relative social phenomenon that depends solely on wide range of disciplines, such as Psychology, Anthropology, Philosophy, Anthropological Linguistics, Sociology, Cognitive and Social Psychology. This fact is corroborated by Fairclough when he opines that "Discourse constitutes the social. Three dimensions of the social are distinguished- knowledge, social relations, and social identity-and these correspond respectively to three major functions of language" (8).
Discourse, viewed from the linguistic perspective, is, in turn, composed of a wide range of disciplines, such as Stylistics, Pragmatics, Conversational Analysis and Speech Act Theory (Ahmad 2).
2.1. Discourse, Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis
Discourse, Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis could be described as a three- in-one discipline mostly used interchangeably especially by non linguists. Discourse is not the same as Discourse Analysis. While Discourse is communication, Discourse Analysis on the other hand is a way of analysing communication (Aziz n.pag). When the analysis of a particular discourse aims at exposing the covert ideology embedded in such a discourse, it can then be said to be at the domain of Critical Discourse Analysis. To put it very simple, when Discourse Analysis becomes more critical (when the hearer or reader uses all linguistic features available in the said to generate meaning of the unsaid in a manner that exposes power and abuse of power, dominance, inequality and invested ideologies) , it becomes Critical Discourse Analysis.Generally speaking, every discourse is structured by dominance and the dominant structures are legitimated by the ideologies of powerful groups (Wodak and Meyer 3).
Discourse Analysis basically studies and examines how an addresser structures his linguistic messages for the addressee and how the addressee in turn uses some linguistic cues to interpret them (the messages) (Brown and Yule qtd. in Taiwo 15).
Social context plays a vital role in generating meaning in a discourse. In fact, it determines the meaning that is to be communicated. Similarly, certain contextual features equally shape the language people use. These are: the interlocutors themselves, their discourse roles and the physical environment of the discourse, the worldview and cultural practices in the domain of the discourse. Discourse Analysis considers language,used together with the aforementioned features, to determine meaning. Discourse Analysis thus generates data for analysis based on the observation and the intuition of the language users. This is why Taiwo believes that a discourse analyst can analyze virtually every conversation, like "(casual, telephone, gossip, etc), speeches (campaigns, formal speeches delivered by political figures, etc), written discourse (novels, plays, news, written speeches, editorials, etc)" (15).
Discourse analysis picks up from where stylistics stops. The tasking questions discourse often asks are: What makes the speaker or writer use language the way he or she does? How does the hearer or reader interpret what the speaker or writer says or writes? Of course, this is where discourse shares a common boundary with Pragmatics. Indeed, the speaker or writer has total control of the choice of words to use but he or she certainly does not have control of the meaning the listener or speaker would derive from what is said or written (Aziz n.pag).
2.2. Basic Concepts in Discourse
•Text
In Discourse, text simply means any instance of language in use. This comprises not only written language but also spoken language. A text could be as small as a word or sentence and could also be as large as a paragraph (Aziz n. pag). A text could equally be a whole chapter, a news item or a conversation. For a piece to be qualified as a text, Halliday and Hassan believe, it must form a "unified whole"(1). When that happens, it can then be regarded as a semantic unit.
A text is meant to have a texture. Texture, as used here, is the parameter that distinguishes a text from something that is not a text. Information in a text flows within and among sentences through the interplay of coherence and cohesion.
•Coherence and Cohesion
Coherence concerns with sense in a text. That is to say that when a text makes sense to a reader or a hearer, it is said to be coherent (Osisanwoqtd. in Ogunsiji 48). Cohesion on the other hand is a Latin word for "striking together" (Stern qtd. in Ogunsiji 48). It is a term in Discourse that relates to how texts are held together lexically and grammatically as a whole. A text without cohesion is only a disjointed speech which may not generate any meaning. The following examples can be used to illustrate coherence and cohesion:
1. Mr. Oko slapped his wife. His wife did not cook for him. (Coherent but not cohesive).
2. Mr. Oko slapped his wife because she did not cook for him. (Coherent and cohesive).
Note: The conjunction "because" and the pronouns "she" and "him" in the second text are cohesive ties or devices employed to enhance coherence and cohesion in the text. They are conjunctive cohesion and referential cohesion respectively.
3. Mr. Oko slapped his wife because South Sudan is the newest African country.(Not coherent but cohesive).
4. Mr. Oko slapped his wife. South Sudan is the newest African country. (Not coherent and not cohesive).
•Coherence in Discourse
Coherence in a discourse manifestsby the extent to which a particularinstance of language in use is able to match a shared belief, knowledge and social conventions of interlocutors in a social context. Unlike cohesion which establishes the linguistic connectivity of sentences and utterances using cohesive ties, coherence in discourse relates basically to the establishment of some relationships between utterances through an interpretation of illocutionary acts.