What is the difference between 'text' and 'discourse'?

Answer 1

This question was raised in the recent debate in Applied Linguistics

between Widdowson and De Beaugrande involved a dispute about the

relationship between text and discourse. Widdowson sees the two as

distinction. My reading of his position is that discourse is text in

use but that texts in corpora or presumably other linguistic

collections of language are not discourse. Texts need to be 'brought

to life' to become discourse.

De Beaugrande argues that a text cannot be contextualized only shifted

into a different context. A real text cannot be decontextualised, that

is, removed from any context; we can only shift it into a different

context, which is an ordinary transaction not just in language

classrooms, but in most reports or discussions of what somebody has

said. (de Beaugrande page 114 from de Beaugrande,

R. (2001).

The term "discourse" is defined in a number of different ways. For example, as the language use above the level of the sentence, as language use in context and as real language use.

Widdowson did not maintain this distinction himself: In 1978 he argued that 'discourse' is made up of sentences having the properties of cohesion & coherence!

Yet there is another distinction between these two terms.

In this distinction 'text' is defined in terms of being a physical product and 'discourse' is viewed as process and meaning is not derived from text but from reader's interaction with the text(discourse).

Discourse analysts examine spoken, signed and written language and may focus on any aspect of linguistic behavior, from the study of particular patterns of pronunciation, through word choice, sentence structure and semantic representation, to the pragmatic analysis of how we organize speech encounters and any combination of these in spoken, written and signed discourse.

Discourse analysis is therefore a study of the forms and functions of discourse.

For Strubb discourse analysis is analyzing larger linguistic units so it is a matter of extending the scope of grammar .For Harris discourse is establishing formal equivalence within a text and connectedness.

Foucault defined discourse as "an entity of sequences of signs in that they are enouncements (Foucault 1969:141).

Text can come in all shapes and sizes: they can correspond in context with any linguistic unit: letter, sound, word, sentence, combination of sentence.

Widdowson identifies a text not by its linguistic extent but by its social contex. In defense of this claim we can give an example of public notes where a single P letter transfers the meaning of 'place for parking your car'.

But identifying something as a text is not the same as interpreting it. We may recognize intentionality but not know the intention. This is where discourse comes in.

We achieve meaning by indexical realization, i.e. by using language to engage our extralinguistic reality.

For Widdowson discourse is the pragmatic process of meaning negotiation and text as its product.

There is some problems with traditional definitions of discourse. If discourse is the study of language pattern above the sentence means that a sentence writ larger quantitively different but qualitatively the same means that we cannot have discourse below sentence level.

Or if discourse refers to the degree of sentence then they sign the same meaning and encoding this meaning is semantic realization so discourse is semantic!

Harris differs between semantic (the meaning of morpheme) and pragmatic (the intention of the producer) but does not say how?!

At the same time Harris is talking about interpretation as the intention of the producer but the meaning to audience is different and he does not give any solution It seems that the two terms discourse and text are same for Harris.

Stubbs did not differentiate between discourse and text. He said the terms are often ambiguous and confusing. For him 'discourse' implies length whereas a text maybe very short (Stubbs 1983:3).

There are instances of languages which are not separate sentences but appears as public notices and their meaning is realized by outside context to where it is related and how. It means to social knowledge.

Texts are of all kinds and length: letters, sound, word, sentence ...

It is the intersexuality of a text which makes it to be understood, it means to relate language to extralinguistic reality.

As I understood for this chapter a text differs from one discourse to another. By discourse I refer to all the extralingusitics parameters (cultural, social, and political and...).Discourse analysis includes all studying investigating the supra-sentential structure of any stretches of language, spoken or written.

And the term 'Text' and 'Text Analysis' lead to confusion. As Tadros (1981) said: "The term 'Text' should be abandoned unless it is used to refer to the physical arrangements of linguistic signals on papers.

Answer 2

Text refers to written or spoken language in a specific form, such as a book, article, or speech. Discourse, on the other hand, encompasses not only the text itself but also the social context, interactions, and implications that surround it. Discourse considers how language is used to convey meaning within a particular cultural or social setting.