The document discusses the confusion between discourse analysis and text analysis in the literature. Some researchers use the terms interchangeably or propose distinctions that do not hold up. For example, Widdowson proposed that discourse involves coherence while text involves cohesion, but later changed his view. Others proposed text refers to written language and discourse refers to spoken, but models have been applied across modalities. Most researchers now see discourse analysis as studying language beyond the sentence in any form. The document concludes the term "text" should only refer to physical arrangement on paper to avoid confusion.

1. Discourse vs. Text
Is it discourse analysis
Or Text analysis?

2. • There has been some confusion in the
literature regarding the distinction
between ‘discourse analysis’ and ‘text
analysis’.
• It is a result of the confusion in the terms
‘discourse’ and ‘text’.
Introduction

3. The Confusion
• Some researchers label their analysis
‘discourse analysis’, while others claim
they are doing ‘text analysis’, but the
difference is often inconsistent.
• Some claim to make clear distinctions
between ‘discourse’ and ‘text’, but a closer
look reveals that their distinctions do not
hold.

4. Examples:
Widdowson (1973)
• Text:
is made up of
sentences.
- A text is made up of
sentences having the
property of
grammatical
cohesion.
-Text Analysis: deals
with cohesion.
• Discourse:
is the use of such
sentences.
- A discourse is made
up of utterances
having the property of
coherence.
- Discourse analysis:
investigates
coherence.

5. Problems with the distinctions:
• It contradicts the known and well-
established distinction between ‘sentence’
and ‘utterance’ in the literature.
• Widdowson did not maintain this
distinction himself: In 1978 he argued that
‘discourse’ is made up of sentences having
the properties of cohesion & coherence!

6. Another distinction
• Text:
• Text is defined in
terms of its being a
physical product.
• Meaning is not found
in text.
• Discourse:
• Discourse is viewed
as a process.
• Meaning is derived
through the reader’s
interaction with the
text  discourse.

7. Problems with such distinctions:
• There is considerable overlap between the
findings of studies claiming to look at text as
‘product’ and of those claiming to investigate
discourse as ‘process’.
• Thus, it is not necessary to maintain a
distinction between discourse analysis and text
analysis on the basis of investigating a process
as opposed investigating a product.

8. Others
• Text:
• written
• Text analysis:
investigates written
form
• Discourse:
• Spoken
• Discourse analysis:
analyzes spoken form.

9. Problems:
• Many studies have used models originally
developed for studying spoken form to
investigate written form (Tadros 1981),
and vice versa (Hoey 1983).
• Thus, such a distinction is not necessary.

10. Conclusion
• Many researchers have come to this
conclusion:
• Discourse analysis includes all studies
investigating the supra-sentential structure
of any stretch of language, spoken or
written.

11. What about text analysis?
• The terms ‘text’ / ‘text analysis’ lead to
confusion.
• Therefore, the term ‘text’ should be
abandoned unless it is used to refer to the
physical arrangement of linguistic signals
on paper (Tadros, 1981).