Towards A Semiotic Definition of Discourse and A Basis For A Typology of Discourses

Semiotica 2016; 208: 177–201
Max Boholm*
Towards a semiotic definition of discourse
and a basis for a typology of discourses
DOI 10.1515/sem-2015-0112
Abstract: This article engages with the widely used academic concept of dis-
course. The aim is threefold: first, to provide a comprehensive overview of how
the notion of discourse is conceived based on (a) definitions in the academic
literature, (b) dictionary definitions, and (c) corpus data; second, to define
discourse as a set of related representations; and, third, to suggest a basis for a
typology of discourses. Following Peirce, a representation is regarded as a
relationship between a signifier, signified element, and interpretant. A basis
for a typology is developed by considering various types of representations
and ways they are related.
Keywords: corpus, definition, discourse, semiotics, representation, Peirce
1 Introduction
Today, the term discourse is widely used in the social sciences and humanities.
Most academic publishers offer at least one book addressing discourse or dis-
course analysis at a general introductory level (e.g., Blommaert 2005; Brown and
Yule 1983; Gee 1999, 2011; Jørgensen and Phillips 2002; Mills 1997; Phillips and
Hardy 2002; Renkema 2004; Schiffrin et al. 2001a; Widdowson 2007). In addition,
the academic literature addresses more specific discourses, such as digital dis-
course (Thurlow and Mroczek 2011), political discourse (Chilton 2004), environ-
mental discourse (Hajer 1995), and media discourse (Fairclough 1995). Many
academic journals have discourse in their titles and as their primary focus, for
example, the journals Critical Discourse Studies, Discourse, Context and Media, and
Discourse Studies, and many other journals have discourse among their central
topics, although not necessarily in their titles, for example, Journal of Pragmatics,
Text & Talk, and Semiotica.
Not only does the abundance of publications on discourse reflect great
interest, but this interest comes from many directions. The term discourse is
used by scholars from a broad range of disciplines and research traditions, such
*Corresponding author: Max Boholm, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden,

E-mail: max.boholm@gu.se
Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

Authenticated
Download Date | 4/18/18 1:50 PM
178 Max Boholm
as linguistics, semiotics, psychology, sociology, philosophy, history, social

anthropology, and political science. The analysis of discourse – i.e., discourse
analysis, in a broad sense – is therefore a multidisciplinary field of academic
endeavor (van Dijk 2011 [2006]), or so it would seem. However, given the
enormous interest in discourse from a variety of theoretical perspectives, two
lines of questioning arise: First, what actually is discourse; that is, how is the
concept of discourse understood and defined? Second, given the variety of
disciplines interested in discourse, to what extent is there a common under-
standing of what the term means? Is discourse understood the same way across
disciplinary boundaries, or are different concepts in fact encoded by the term in
different academic traditions?
In seeking to answer these questions, scholars have argued that the mean-
ing of discourse often is taken for granted and left undefined (Jørgensen and
Phillips 2002; Mills 1997). Furthermore, when actually defined, discourse is
attributed quite different meanings depending on the discipline and research
tradition (Coupland and Jaworski 2009; Jørgensen and Phillips 2002; Mills 1997;
Schiffrin et al. 2001b). As such, there is therefore reason to call into question
any genuine multidisciplinary interest in discourse; instead, it seems as
though quite different concepts are applied, only sharing a nominal denomina-
tion (i.e., discourse).
Given this state of affairs, taking into account that the term discourse is
central to much social and humanistic science, without there being any clear
common understanding of its meaning, this article has three aims:
1. to provide a comprehensive overview of how discourse is understood based
on (a) dictionary definitions, (b) theoretical definitions in the academic
literature, and (c) corpus data;
2. to define discourse; and
3. following this definition, to offer a basis for a systematic typology of
discourses that accounts for specific and precise understandings of the
concept.
This article argues for the possibility of defining discourse in an inclusive manner
that captures current understandings from various perspectives. Indeed, discourse is
used in varied ways, most of which can be systematically accounted for by a single
definition and a basic structure – or at least so I argue here. To construe an inclusive
but still useful definition of discourse, this article turns to some basic principles of
semiotics (Section 4), as semiotic theory provides the level of abstraction needed for
a sufficiently general understanding of discourse. First, however, we must consider
the many ways that the term discourse is understood, i.e., the conceptions to be
accounted for in search of a general understanding of the concept. We start with

Authenticated
Towards a semiotic definition of discourse 179
definitions of discourse in dictionaries and theory (Section 2). To broaden our scope,
and to take seriously the idea that a good definition of a term should at least
somewhat reflect how the term is actually used, over and above the specific context
in which it is defined (Hansson 2006), we proceed to how discourse is used in corpus
data (Section 3).
2 Theoretical background: Definitions

of discourse
2.1 Dictionary definitions
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the noun discourse originates
from the Latin discursus (noun), which in classical Latin means the “action of
running off in different directions” (OED 2014). The noun, in turn, derives from
the Latin verb discurrere, meaning “to run about” (Merriam-Webster 2014; OED
2014). In post-classical Latin, discursus has the additional meaning of “conver-
sation” (Merriam-Webster 2014; OED 2014). This second meaning is arguably
best understood as a metaphorical extension of the more concrete classical
meaning (Lakoff 1987). Running (moving) off in different directions has been
extended to involve moving about in thought and speech, for example, moving
between different topics and speakers (Hodge 1984).
Table 1 presents definitions of discourse from Oxford English Dictionary
(OED 2014), Chambers Twenty-First Century Dictionary (Robinson 1999), and
Merriam-Webster Online (Merriam-Webster 2014).1 As suggested by its etymol-
ogy, the word discourse is ascribed both material and psychological meanings
in dictionaries. However, the material senses of discourse, such as “the onward
course of something in space or time,” are today obsolete or outdated
(see A2b–c in Table 1), as are quite a few of the other senses of discourse
according to the dictionaries (see Table 1). Contemporary meanings of dis-
course mainly relate to a psychological or communicative process, or to the
result of such processes, for example, a conversation or an account. Often the
communicative aspect is restricted to linguistic communication. For example,
discourse is defined as a linguistic account of something, such as a “treatment
of a subject, in speech or writing,” a narrative, or a rumor, or is considered a
1 Several lists of definitions and senses of discourse are presented below. Capital letters are
used to differentiate the lists and to facilitate reference to these lists and their entries.

Authenticated
180 Max Boholm
Table 1: Dictionary definitions of discourse.
Oxford English Dictionary (OED ):

A. The process or faculty of reasoning; reasoned argument or thought; reason,
rationality. Now rare.
Aa. The thread of an argument; a line of reasoning; a reasoned argument. Obsolete.
Ab. More generally: the onward course of something in space or time; succession or
sequence of time, events, actions, etc. Obsolete.
Ac. Course of arms; combat. Obsolete.
Aa. A more or less formal treatment of a subject, in speech or writing, in which it is
considered or discussed at length; a treatise, dissertation, homily, or the like; a
disquisition.
Ab. A narrative or account of a particular subject. Now rare.
Aa. The action or process of communicating thought by means of the spoken word;
interchange of words; conversation, talk. Also: the words exchanged by this means;
speech. In later use also: the written representation of this; communication in written
form.
Ab. The faculty of conversing; conversational ability. Obsolete.
Ac. As a count noun: a conversation, a talk.
Ad. A rumor, a report. Obsolete.
A. The quality of being conversant in a subject. Obsolete.
A. Interaction, dealings, communication.
A. The body of statements, analysis, opinions, etc., relating to a particular domain of
intellectual or social activity, esp. as characterized by recurring themes, concepts,
or values; (also) the set of shared beliefs, values, etc., implied or expressed by this.
A. Linguistics. A connected series of utterances by which meaning is communicated,
esp. one forming a unit for analysis; spoken or written communication regarded as
consisting of such utterances
Chambers st Century Dictionary (Robinson ):
B. a formal speech or essay on a particular subject
B. serious conversation
Merriam-Webster Online (Merriam-Webster ):
C. archaic: the capacity of orderly thought or procedure: rationality
C. verbal interchange of ideas; especially conversation
Ca. formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought on a subject
Cb. connected speech or writing
Cc. a linguistic unit (as a conversation or a story) larger than a sentence
C. obsolete: social familiarity
C. a mode of organizing knowledge, ideas, or experience that is rooted in language
and its concrete contexts (as history or institutions)

Authenticated
verbal exchange of ideas and thus synonymous with the word conversation
(see A3, A4, B1, B2, and C3a in Table 1).
2.2 Theoretical definitions
As a theoretical term, discourse has been ascribed various meanings. Following

Baker and Sibonile (2011: 30–31), we can distinguish, at minimum, the following
seven understandings of the term in academia:
D1. Language in use (e.g., Brown and Yule 1983; Gee 2011; Thurlow and
Mroczek 2011; Widdowson 2007)
D2. Spoken language: in this sense, discourse is roughly equivalent to
conversation2
D3. Language above the level of sentence or clause (see, e.g., Stubbs 1983): in
this sense, discourse is about texts, not clauses, which have been a main
focus of linguistics
D4. Context of language use, or “the language associated with a particular
social field or practice” (Fairclough 2013: 179): this sense of discourse is
roughly equivalent to the notions of genre or text type; for example, the
phrase political discourse restricts the context of language use to the
activity of politics (and its actors, institutions, instruments, etc.)
D5. Topic (semantic content) of language use (cf. Widdowson 2007): this is the
meaning of discourse in phrases such as environmental discourse
D6. “Practices which systematically form the object of which we speak”
(Foucault 1972: 49)
D7. “A set of meanings, metaphors, representations, images, stories, state-
ments, and so on that in some way together produce a particular version
of events” (Burr 1995: 48)
Baker and Sibonile’s (2011) list can doubtless be extended further. Recalling
Burr’s (1995) definition (D7), Fairclough (2003: 17) defines discourse as:
D8. “a particular way of representing some part of the (physical, social, psycho-
logical) world.”
For a similar definition, see also Jørgensen and Phillips (2002: 1). Another
definition is provided by Parker (1990: 191), who conceives of discourse as:
D9. “a system of statements which constructs an object.”
2 Although spoken monologue is a form of spoken language, the sense of discourse emphasized
by scholars who advocate this definition involves spoken interaction.

Authenticated
182 Max Boholm
From these definitions of discourse, we can distinguish three critical issues

concerning (a) the relationship between language and discourse, (b) the type of
language and discourse, and (c) the productivity of discourse, which will be
discussed next.
2.2.1 Language and discourse
First, in most of the above theoretical definitions, discourse is considered

linguistic in nature, while in others it is conceived more generally. The first
five definitions are clear examples of discourse understood as a feature of
language (language in use, spoken language, etc.) or as the topic of language
(see D1–D5 above). Since “statements,” referred to by Parker, are linguistic, his
definition also exemplifies a linguistic conception of discourse (D9). In the other
definitions presented above (D6–D8), discourse is not restricted to language.
Practices (see D6), representations (see D7), and ways of representing some part
of the world (see D8) can be linguistic, but do not have to be. In addition,
“images” in Burr’s (1995) definition are not linguistic (see D7). These wider
conceptions of discourse include not only verbal representations but also
images, gestures, and other non-verbal communication.
Gee (1999) distinguishes between discourse (with a lower-case d) and
Discourse (with a capital D), where discourse refers to language in use (see D1
above), while Discourse includes discourse (lower-case d), but greatly exceeds it,
integrating “body, clothes, gestures, actions, interactions, ways with things,
symbols, tools, technologies (be they guns or graphs), and values, attitudes
beliefs and emotions” (Gee 1999: 7). As such, Discourse (with a capital D) is
not limited to verbal representations. Similarly, semioticians typically consider
discourse in this wider sense, not restricted to verbal symbols (Kress and van
Leeuwen 2001; Lindenfeld 1971).
2.2.2 Types of language and discourse
Given a linguistic interpretation of discourse, a second divide among the above

definitions follows from the type of language considered. The second definition
in the list (D2) is restricted to spoken language, while the others are not.
Linguistic conceptions of discourse that are not restricted to spoken language,
in principal, also include written and sign language. Often discourse analyses
focus on “texts” as objects of study. Here, “text” is understood as written
language, but note that “text” is sometimes understood much more broadly.

Authenticated
For example, Parker (1990: 193) writes: “speech, writing, non-verbal behavior,
Braille, Morse code, semaphore, runes, advertisements, fashion systems, stained
glass, architecture, tarots cards and bus tickets are forms of text.”
2.2.3 Productivity of discourse and power
A third line of demarcation concerns the productivity of discourse. Discourse is

understood as something that “forms,” “produces,” and “constructs” objects
and events, according to the definitions of Foucault (1972), Burr (1995), and
Parker (1990; see D6, D7, and D9 above). Hence, in these definitions the
productivity of discourse is emphasized. Foucault (1990: 101) exemplifies this
view, focusing especially on the production of power in society: “Discourse
transmits and produces power; it reinforces it, but also undermines and exposes
it, renders it fragile and makes it possible to thwart it.”
Discourse is therefore commonly considered something that (re)produces
power relationships and social structure; it is understood to preserve certain
ways of conceiving the world, in contrast to others (Blommaert 2005;
Fairclough 2001 [1989], 2003; Foucault 1990; Laclau and Mouffe 1985; Mills
1997; Parker 1990; van Dijk 1993). Another view of discourse, however, empha-
sizes its produced, or “resultative,” character. For example, Hyland and
Paltridge (2011, in glossary) define discourse as “language produced as an
act of communication” (cf. D1). From this perspective, discourse is the result of
communicative action and behavior. Although not denying any productive
functions, discourse is thus understood as a result of communicative language
behavior (cf. D1–D3). It should be noted that these two perspectives on dis-
course, i.e., as productive or produced, are not mutually exclusive. On the
contrary, the view adopted here and discussed below (Section 6) is that, since
discourse is a product of communicative action, it can be productive in terms
of psychological and social effects.
3 Observations from corpus data
3.1 General remarks
A good definition of a term should at least somewhat reflect how it is actually

used (Hansson 2006). Therefore, I will complement this overview of how dis-
course is defined with some observations from corpus data. In linguistics, a

Authenticated
184 Max Boholm
corpus is a body of texts used for the analysis of authentic language use.3 Due to
digitalization, corpora have grown considerably in size (for a historical over-
view, see McEnery and Wilson 2001), and modern corpora contain up to hun-
dreds of millions of words.
Corpus data enable observations of natural occurrences of linguistic units,
for example, morphemes, words, and phrases, with regard to, for example, the
text genre, co-occurring words, and grammatical structures of which the linguis-
tic unit is part. Here, the main genres, syntactic functions, modifiers, (post-head)
complements, and compounds of the noun discourse are analyzed. The analysis
is based on the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), which covers
a 22-year period (1990–2012) and contains 450 million words from texts of five
equally weighted genres: transcribed spoken data from TV shows, fictive mate-
rial (including novels and movie scripts), newspapers, magazines, and academic
journals (Davies 2009). The analysis of syntactic functions, modifiers, comple-
ments, and compounds is based on a random sample of the contexts of discourse
in academic (n = 500) and non-academic genres (n = 500).
3.2 Genres
From COCA, we can conclude that the word discourse is much more common in
academic than non-academic genres (see Table 2). The singular noun discourse is
sixteen to twenty-seven times more common in academic contexts than it is in the
other COCA genres (i.e., spoken, fiction, magazines, and newspapers). The dis-
tribution of the plural term discourses is even more heavily skewed towards the
academic genre. Considering the lemma discourse, including both the singular
and plural forms, 85% of all uses are found in the academic genre of COCA.
Table 2: Raw frequency and frequency per million words (within parentheses) of the noun
discourse in the COCA genres.
Word form Spoken Fiction Magazine Newspaper Academic All
discourse (sing.)     , ,

(.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.)
discourses (plur.)  (.)  (.)  (.)  (.) , (.)
(.)
3 In Latin corpus means “body”; the plural form of corpus is corpora.

Authenticated
3.3 Adjectives, modifiers, and compounds
The noun discourse is frequently (i.e., half of academic uses and nearly 60% of non-
academic ones) modified by adjectives. The by far most common adjectives modify-
ing discourse in the academic and non-academic genres of COCA are public and
political. Based on their semantics, the adjectives modifying discourse have different
associations. There are, for example, associations with nations or ethnic groups
(e.g., American, Chinese, and Palestinian), religion (e.g., religious, Islamic, and
Christian), ideology (e.g., nationalist, liberal, and Kemalist; cf. nationalism, liberal-
ism, and Kemalism), science, scientific methodology, or discipline (e.g., academic,
philosophic, and anthropological), forms of communication (e.g., narrative, poetic,
and written), topics of communication (e.g., trigonometric, gastronomic, and envir-
onmental), temporal anchoring (e.g., contemporary, modern, and post-Descartian),
evaluations (e.g., civilized, better, and vile), gender (e.g., male, feminine, and
masculinist), and intelligence (e.g., rational, intellectual, and intelligent).
Besides adjectives, other much less frequent modifiers include genitives
(both nouns and pronouns), demonstratives (e.g., this and that), and quantifiers
(e.g., all and some). Genitives, such as our, his, their, and Courbet’s, refer to the
person(s) who have produced the discourse in question.
Sometimes discourse is part of compound nouns (11% of academic uses and
5% of non-academic ones), for example, discourse analysis, discourse commu-
nity, discourse functions, human rights discourse, mother–daughter discourse, and
illness discourse.
3.4 Prepositional phrase complements

In the noun phrases headed by discourse, prepositional phrases frequently function
as complements, for example, discourse on women (23% of academic uses and 20%
of non-academic uses). The most common prepositions of such prepositional
phrases are of, on, and about. Other less frequent prepositions include between,
with, and in.
Semantically, prepositional phrases headed by of, on, and about specify the
topic of the discourse. For example, a discourse on women is a discourse having
women as its topic. Prepositional phrases headed by of can also specify other
relationships, such as the source of the discourse. For example, discourse of the
women’s movement specifies the producer of the discourse as the women’s
movement. Prepositional phrases headed by between and with specify the inter-
actants of the discourse, for example, discourse between Spanish-speaking
patients and their non-Spanish speaking doctors.

Authenticated
186 Max Boholm
3.5 Syntactic functions
By far the most common syntactic function of discourse in both the academic
and non-academic genres of COCA is that of complementing prepositions in
prepositional phrases, for example, analysis of discourse.4 The prepositional
phrase of which discourse is a constituent can, in turn, have various functions,
for example, complementing a noun, as in analysis of discourse, complementing
an adjective (unusual), as in faithful to discourse, or an adjunct, as in In public
discourse, all multiculturalism was reduced to “identity politics.”
Complex noun phrases that embed other noun phrases, such as analysis of
discourse, are sometimes discussed as characteristic of abstract and technical
language (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004; Holmberg et al. 2011). This pattern
therefore again suggests that discourse often has a fairly technical use. Other
examples of such embedding noun phrases are mode of discourse, realms of
discourse, theory of discourse, and level of discourse.
4 In search of a definition
Given the wide range of views of discourse presented above, any attempt to find
a single definition of the word that captures all, or even most, of the included
interpretations is a challenge. A necessary requirement for a definition is that it
be formulated with an appropriate level of abstraction, inclusive enough to
provide a general understanding of a term. Through specification, this abstract
meaning can be narrowed down to capture more precise meanings and sub-
types. Such an approach to developing a definition involves a trade-off between
abstraction and richness of information. Due to its high level of abstraction, the
general definition will provide only limited information. Through specification,
the information can be made richer, but at the cost of less general applicability.
This approach will be adopted here. We will start with a general definition,
aiming to capture the wide variety of understandings of the term discourse. We
will then provide a framework for systematically specifying this abstract infor-
mation, resulting in various senses and sub-types.
Here, discourse is defined as a set of related representations. Through specify-
ing (a) the type of representations in the set and (b) the type of relationship holding
4 The second and third most common syntactic functions are those of being the subject or the
object of the clause, for example, The discourse [subject] has changed and This book is likely to
dominate intelligent discourse [object] this winter.

Authenticated
between the representations, more specific senses and sub-types of discourse can be
derived. Before we explore these two ways of specifying the discourse concept at
greater depth, the notion of representation needs to be addressed.
The concept of representation is here understood along the lines of the
philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914). Following Peirce (1992 [1867],
1998 [1894]), a representation (or sign) is regarded as a tripartite relationship
between a signifying element (signifier), a signified element, and an interpre-
tant that relates the signifier to the signified element (also see Atkin 2010;
Chandler 2007; Eco 1979; Fiske 2011 [1982]). Peirce’s notion of interpretant is
not that of an interpreter (a cognitive agent); instead, an interpretant is an
interpretation (understanding) that relates a signifier to its signified element
(Atkin 2010; Chandler 2007; Eco 1979; Fiske 2011 [1982]). However, an inter-
pretation implies an interpreter and, making this assumption explicit, we can
add an interpreter as a fourth element of our model of representation. After all,
as Morris (1938: 4) notes, it seems correct that “something is a sign only
because it is interpreted as a sign of something by some interpreter” (also
cf. Eco 1979; Fiske 2011 [1982]). Peirce himself seems to have recognized the
significance of both an interpreter and an interpretant, as he defines a signifier
of a representation as “something which stands to somebody [i.e., an inter-
preter] for something [i.e., a signified element] in some respect or capacity”
(CP 2.228). A classic example of this structure is smoke (signifier) being a sign
of fire (signified element) to a cognitive agent, for example, a forest ranger
(interpreter), given the knowledge that fire causes smoke (interpretant).
Another example is the written form eld ‘fire’ (signifier), which represents
fires (signified element) via the conventional concept of fire (interpretant) for
speakers of Swedish (interpreter).
Typologies of representations can be constructed based on (a) the type of
signifier, (b) the type of signified element, and (c) the relationship between
signifier and signified element. Peirce developed highly elaborate typologies of
representations based on sub-classes of signifiers, signified elements, and
their relationships (see Atkin 2010). For present purposes, less sophisticated
classifications suffice (Allwood and Andersson 1976). Different types of repre-
sentations follow from considering the signifying elements, for example, vocal
sounds, gestures, facial displays, images, and writing. Parallel to the five
senses (i.e., sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch), there are visual, auditory,
gustatory, olfactory, and tactile representations. Based on the type of signified
element, we can likewise construe a vast number of typologies. One paradig-
matic example is Carl von Linnaeus’ taxonomy of organisms. Of special inter-
est to Peirce is the relationship between signifier and signified element.
He suggests three types of signs: icons, where the signifier represents the

Authenticated
188 Max Boholm
signified through similarity; indices, where the signifier represents the signif-
ied through physical connection (continuity in time and space); and symbols,
where the signifier represents the signified element through convention (Peirce
1992 [1867], 1998 [1894]). These types are not mutually exclusive, as one and
the same representation can function via more than one of these relationships.
For example, linguistic elements such as words are often cited as examples of
symbols, but sometimes iconic and indexical relationships are essential to
language, as seen by onomatopoetic words (e.g., ping-pong), which resemble
their referents, and deictic expressions (e.g., now and here), which refer
through continuity in time and space.
5 A basis for a typology of discourses
5.1 Fundamentals of a typology: Continuity and similarity
I have defined discourse as a set of related representations. I have also suggested

that the concept can be specified along the lines of the type of representations in
the set and the type of relationship holding between them. Such specifications
allow for different types of discourse, which are more concrete, exclusive,
precise, and informative than the initial definition. As we will see, such types,
in turn, map onto the various uses, senses, and definitions of discourse dis-
cussed above (Sections 2 and 3).
At a fundamental level, the representations of a discourse (like the elements of
a sign) can be related by (a) continuity in time and space and (b) similarity, because
the representations of the set share some characteristic, for example, being pro-
duced by the same source or sharing a signified element. The relationships of
continuity and similarity often coincide. For example, a medical consultation can
be seen as a medical discourse (i.e., it is a set of representations sharing a certain
institutional context), but a medical consultation is also a conversation, which is a
set of utterances (i.e., a form of representation) related by their continuity in time
and space (see section 5.2.1 below for further discussion).
The relationship of similarity can be developed further. A set of representa-
tions can constitute a discourse by sharing at least one of the following
characteristics:
(i) the source of the representations
(ii) the recipient of the representations
(iii) the type of signifier of the representations and its relationship with the
signified element

Authenticated
(iv) the type of signified element (or content) of the representations

(v) the effect (or function) of the representations
(vi) the ideological or institutional context of the representations
Different sub-types of discourse can be distinguished based on these dimen-

sions. For example, a media discourse is a set of representations having the
media as a source. A public discourse is a set of representations having the
public as a recipient. An oral discourse is a set of representations having speech
as its signifying element. A health discourse is a set of representations having
health as its signified element. A painful discourse is a set of representations that
has pain as an effect. A political discourse is a set of representations having
politics as its context. See Figure 1 for the basic structure of a typology of
discourses based on the above definition and analytical dimensions.
conversation
continuity
…
media discourse
source
…
public discourse
recipient
…
discourse
oral discourse
signifier
…
health discourse
content
…
similarity
painful discourse
effect
…
social political discourse

practice …
context
nationalist discourse
ideology
…
Figure 1: Basic structure of a typology of discourses.

Authenticated
190 Max Boholm
Figure 1 depicts a schematized structure that in principle can handle many more
discourse types than those shown, for example, media discourse, public
discourse, and oral discourse. Additional discourse types are presented below
(in Sections 5.2.1–5.2.5), to elaborate on the analytical dimensions of the frame-
work suggested here and in the previous section. In particular, we explore
how the analytical dimensions suggested above relate to the dictionary defini-
tions, theoretical definitions, and corpus data explored in Sections 2 and 3.
It should be noted that some of the discourse types discussed below
(in Sections 5.2.1–5.2.5) share more than one of the six dimensions shown
above. Moreover, the six dimensions cannot be considered completely indepen-
dent of each other, although they are analytically distinct. For example, the
content of a discourse, i.e., what the discourse is about (the signified element),
depends on the signifying elements.
5.2 Analytical dimensions of discourse types
5.2.1 Continuity in time and space
According to the OED, one sense of discourse is that of “a connected series of

utterances” (see A8 in Table 1). Similarly, Merriam-Webster Online suggests that
“connected speech and writing” is a sense of discourse (see C3b in Table 1).
Defined in this way, discourse is a set of representations (“utterances,”
“speech,” and “writing”) related (connected) through continuity in time and
space. This conception is implied by other definitions of discourse as well,
namely, definitions of discourse as a formal treatment of a subject, conversation,
narrative, rumor, or speech (see Table 1, specifically, A3, A4a, A4c A4d, B, C2,
C3b, and C3c; also see D2 in Section 2.2). Treatments of subjects (e.g., a dis-
sertation), conversations, narratives, etc., are sets of representations that follow
in a consecutive temporal or spatial order, i.e., they form a whole by means of
their continuity in time and space.
5.2.2 Shared source and/or recipient
We can distinguish discourse types based on the types of sources of the

representations of the set. Examples of such discourse types from corpus
data are the compound media discourse and the adjective–noun constructions
American discourse, human discourse, male discourse, female discourse,
Chinese discourse, Palestinian discourse, Western discourse, presidential

Authenticated
discourse, Nigerian discourse, and Arab discourse. These are discourses (sets of
representations) produced by the media, Americans, humans, and so on.
Similarly, genitive constructions with discourse differentiate discourse types
based on source. For example, Courbet’s discourse and discourse of the
women’s movement are sets of representations from Courbet and the women’s
movement, respectively.
One of the most common discourse types referred to in the COCA data is
public discourse, which is a set of representations related by having a shared
recipient, namely, the public. A public discourse can also, but need not, be
understood as produced by the public, as illustrated by the following example
from COCA: the public discourse of Cuba’s officials. Other discourse types from
the corpus data that are distinguished based on the recipient are open discourse
and official discourse, i.e., sets of representations that can be generally received.
In contrast, internal discourse, private discourse, off-the-record discourse, and
in-house discourse are sets of representations that are not generally received, but
restricted to a selected group of recipients.
Some discourse types observed in the corpus data are best classified based
on both the parameters source and recipient. For example, popular discourse is a
set of representations popularly produced, received, or both; the compounds
neighbor-to-neighbor discourse and mother–daughter discourse refer to sets of
representations produced and received by neighbors or by mothers and daugh-
ters, respectively; and a discourse between Spanish-speaking patients and their
non-Spanish-speaking doctors is a set of representations produced and received
by patients who speak Spanish and doctors that do not.
5.2.3 Shared signifier and/or signified element
As discussed above (Section 4), representations can be classified depending on

the type of signifier, the type of signified element, and the relationship between
signifier and signified element. Likewise, we can classify sets of related repre-
sentations (i.e., discourses) depending on the type of signifier, type of signified
element, and their relationship. If the signifier of the representations is, for
example, verbal, written, spoken, or visual, then verbal, written, spoken, and
visual discourses follow.
Examples of discourse types from the COCA data that are distinguished by
a shared signifier (and its relationship with the signified element) are prose
discourse, written discourse, visual discourse, oral discourse, whispered dis-
course, narrative discourse, and symbolic discourse. Of central interest among
the dictionary definitions discussed above is linguistic discourse, because it

Authenticated
192 Max Boholm
emphasizes, for example, “speech,” “writing,” or “the spoken word” (see Table
1, senses A3a, A4a, and C3b). As we have seen, some of the theoretical
definitions of discourse are restricted to linguistic representations (see D1–
D5), while others are not.
A focus on the signified element of the representations, i.e., what the
discourse is about, reveals some other discourse types. Examples from the
corpus data, compounds such as human rights discourse, Yellow Peril discourse,
virtue discourse, nature discourse, national-security discourse, liberal rights
discourse, illness discourse, health discourse, and AIDS discourse, are cases in
point. These are sets of representations about human rights, the Yellow Peril,
virtues, and so on. Similarly, adjective modifications specify discourse types
based on the signified element; for example, moral discourse, ethical discourse,
economic discourse, trigonometric discourse, racial discourse, gender discourse,
gastronomic discourse, and environmental discourse are sets of representations
differentiated by having moral, ethics, economy, trigonometry, etc., as their
topics (i.e., signified elements). In addition, prepositional phrase complements
distinguish types of discourse based on what the discourse is about, for exam-
ple, discourse about liberal Western democracy and discourse on evolution.
A shared signified element is implied by the theoretical definition of
discourse as the topic of language use (i.e., D5). It is also implied by the sense
of discourse as a more or less formal (more or less lengthy) treatment of a subject
(e.g., a treatise, dissertation, or essay), as suggested by the dictionary defini-
tions, i.e., senses A3a, B1, and C3a in Table 1.
As with the analytical categories of source and recipient, combinations are
possible in which it is difficult to distinguish discourse types based on either
signifier or signified element. Instead, poetic discourse, theoretical discourse, and
technical discourse are discourses involving both certain forms of signifiers and
certain types of content. For example, poetic discourse is a set of representations
sharing certain forms of representation, for example, verse forms, rhyme, and
sound symbolism, but also certain forms of content (i.e., signified element), for
example, love, despair, and natural beauty.
5.2.4 Shared effects
In the COCA, we find phrases such as critical discourse, painful discourse,

authoritarian discourse, uncritical discourse, threatening discourse, persuasive
discourse, oppositional discourse, confessional discourse, and comical discourse.
These are all discourse types differentiated based on the type of effect caused by
the set of representations constituting the discourse. Critique is the effect of

Authenticated
critical discourse, pain the effect of painful discourse, authority the effect of
authoritarian discourse, and so on. As noted above (Section 2.2.3), the effects of
discourse are of special interest in some theories that regard discourse as
something that forms, produces, and constructs something else (see D6, D7,
and D9 in Section 2.2). The productivity of discourse will be discussed further in
Section 6.
5.2.5 Shared ideological or institutional context
A discourse can be produced in a particular psychological and social context,

namely, in relation to an ideology, institution, or social practice. This aspect of
discourse is central to the dictionary definitions in which discourse is under-
stood as “the body of statements, analysis, opinions, etc., relating to a particular
domain of intellectual or social activity” or as “a mode of organizing knowledge,
ideas, or experience that is rooted in language and its concrete contexts (as
history or institutions)” (see A7 and C5 in Table 1). The very same aspect is also
considered in theoretical definitions of discourse, namely, as the context of
language use, or “the language associated with a particular social field or
practice” (Fairclough 2013: 179; see D4 in Section 2.2).
Adjective modification and compounds in the corpus data provide several
examples of discourse types based on the ideological or institutional context
associated with the set of representations (see Table 3). First, several adjectives
are related to ideologies, various -isms, for example, an anti-Semitic discourse is
a set of representations produced in the context of anti-Semitism and a liberal
discourse is one produced in the context of liberalism. Second, adjectives and
compounds determine discourse types associated with various institutions and
social practices, for example, scientific discourse, education discourse, legal
discourse, and political discourse (i.e., discourses associated with science, edu-
cation, law, and politics); see Table 3 for more examples. Related to scientific,
academic, and scholarly discourse, the corpus data reveal several discourse
types based on scientific disciplines (see Table 3), for example, philosophical
discourse and anthropological discourse (cf. philosophy and anthropology).
Finally, a few phrases from the corpus data refer to sets of representations
associated with religion, for example, Christian discourse (for more examples,
see Table 3).
The psychological and social contexts associated with a set of representa-
tions strongly restrict the understanding of other aspects of the set, namely, the
source, recipient, signifiers, content, and effect (cf. Sections 5.2.2–5.2.4 above).
For example, for political discourse, we expect politicians, but also other social

Authenticated
194 Max Boholm
Table 3: Discourse types from the COCA data based on psychological and social context.
Ideology: ideological discourse (ideology), absolutist discourse (absolutism), anti-

Semitic discourse (anti-Semitism), antitotalitarian discourse
(antitotalitariansim), colonial discourse (colonialism), imperialist
discourse (imperialism), anti-imperialist discourse (anti-imperialism),
fascist discourse (fascism), feminist discourse (feminism),
individualistic discourse (individualism), Kemalist discourse
(Kemalism), liberal discourse (liberalism), nationalist discourse,
nationalistic discourse (nationalism), orientalist discourse
(orientalism), racist discourse (racism)
Social institutions academic discourse (academia), scientific discourse (science),
(practices): scholarly discourse (school), classroom discourse, education discourse
(education), juridical discourse, legal discourse (law), medical
discourse (medicine), political discourse, geopolitical discourse
(politics), army discourse (army), everyday discourse (everyday life),
bureaucratic discourse (bureaucracy), marital discourse (marriage)
Scientific disciplines: historical discourse (history), psychoanalytic discourse
(psychoanalysis), philosophic discourse (philosophy), metaphysical
discourse (metaphysics), eugenicist discourse (eugenics), ethnographic
discourse (ethnography), anthropological discourse (anthropology),
aesthetic discourse (aesthetics), theological discourse (theology)
Religion: religious discourse (religion), secular discourse (secularism), Christian
discourse (Christianity), Islamic discourse, Islamist discourse (Islam)
actors, such as journalists and citizens, to be sources and recipients; we expect

certain signifiers (e.g., democracy, left, right, and names of political parties) and
reference to matters of collective concern (e.g., the distribution of wealth and
solutions to social problems), as well as a non-negligible amount of reference to
politicians and their ethos; and we expect certain effects, for example, reproduc-
tion of power relationships and hegemonic orders (van Dijk 1997). For all
discourse types in Table 3, similar expectations of sources, recipients, signifiers,
contents, and effects can be listed.
5.3 Co-instantiation of discourse types

Many of the discourse types discussed above can be co-instantiated. We can
almost always attribute several discourse types to one and the same set of
representations (e.g., a text or set of texts). The analytical act of ascribing a
discourse type to a set of representations emphasizes some aspect(s) of the set,
from a certain perspective and given a certain theoretical interest. A set of

Authenticated
representations analyzed by Boholm (2014) can serve to illustrate this point; this is
the set of Swedish government (i.e., parliamentary) documents referring to nano.
This set, “S,” simultaneously instantiates several discourse types, for example:
– S is a linguistic discourse, i.e., S is a set of representations that system-
atically associate signifying elements with signified elements based on the
(arbitrary) conventions of Swedish. As such, S may be of interest to a
linguist, but not necessarily an art scholar interested in the meaning of
paintings (a form of iconic discourse).
– S is a written (textual) discourse, i.e., S is a set of representations having
visual signifiers that follow the orthographic conventions of the language
community of written Swedish. As such, S differs from, for example, spoken
discourse, which comprises audio–vocal representations that instead follow
phonological conventions and principles.
– S is a nano discourse, i.e., S is a set of representations having the morpheme
nano as a signifying element. This discourse involves various words having
this morpheme as a constituent, for example, nanotechnology, nanomaterial,
nanometer, nanoparticle, nanoelectronics, nanofield, and nanotool.
– S is a political discourse, i.e., S is a set of representations used in the context
of politics (a social practice). In addition, it is produced by politicians and
has political content and political effects (for details, see Boholm 2014).
– S is a risk discourse, i.e., S is a set of representations (partly) about the risks
of nanomaterials.
– S is an innovation discourse, i.e., S is a set of representations that describe
nanoscience and technology (and its products) as something new, innova-
tive, and even (scientifically) revolutionary.
For sure, the list could be extended, but it is sufficient to illustrate the point
addressed here, namely, that discourse is tightly connected with a semiotic back-
ground of signifiers, content, sources, recipients, effects, and contexts. A classifi-
cation of discourses builds on a selection of such aspects. The identification of
discourse types therefore depends on the perspective and theoretical interest
adopted. Ascription of discourse types depends on an “interpretant” – to borrow
a term from Peirce.
6 Discussion
Three critical issues have been identified in theoretical definitions of the concept
of discourse (see Section 2.2.1–2.2.3): What is the relationship between discourse

Authenticated
196 Max Boholm
and language? What is the relationship between discourse and different types of
language? Is discourse produced or productive? In response to these issues, this
article suggests a definition of discourse inspired by the basic principles of
semiotics, namely, discourse constitutes a set of related representations, under-
stood as tripartite relationships between a signifier, a signified element, and an
interpretant, and the relationships between the representations at a basic level
are continuity and similarity.
A strength of this definition is that it is broad enough to cover a wide range
of dictionary definitions, theoretical understandings, and corpus material, at the
same time as it enables systematic specification of discourse types correspond-
ing to more precise understandings of discourse (e.g., in dictionaries, theoretical
definitions, and corpus data). In relation to the critical issues raised, the
approach developed here provides clear answers. First, discourse is, according
to the definition proposed, not restricted to language: it can involve all sorts of
non-verbal communication, including, pictures, facial expressions, manual ges-
tures, architecture, clothing, and physical interaction. It should be emphasized,
though, that linguistic discourse is of special (sometimes sole) interest to many
discourse theorists and analysts. In relation to the second issue, whether any
particular type of language is more central to discourse than others, no priorities
or restrictions are proposed here. Linguistic discourse can involve spoken lan-
guage, written language, braille, Morse code, sign language, etc.
Third, in relation to whether discourse is produced or productive, the answer
is that it is both. Discourses result from communication (an effect), but is also
productive (a cause) in shaping further communication, social interaction, and
relationships. Discourse both reflects and constrains thought, reflecting ways of
understanding the physical, psychological, and sociological worlds. For example,
lexical and grammatical choices illustrate a perspective of the world, the framing
of a situation, what is important and, the converse, what is not.
Discourses can have effects (Fairclough 2003). Especially important in this
respect is linguistic discourse that (re)produces social relationships and is
essential to constructing social institutions (Fairclough 2001 [1989]; Searle
2010). Such discourse is the foundation of ideology and its primary, but not
only, instrument, forming thought and behavior. Power relationships are repro-
duced and maintained through linguistic and other semiotic practices. However,
power is also resisted and reacted against by such practices. Perceptions and
understandings of physical, psychological, and social worlds occur in a context
of prior knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, values, and emotions. This context is
preserved through time, via representations (e.g., on paper, in audio and video
recordings, in computer memory, and in human memory). Discourses are the
result of humans’ representative ability (intentionality), most profoundly in

Authenticated
language and after their production these discourses constitute contexts that
take part in forming social life and thought.
The definition of discourse suggested here (i.e., a set of related representations)
is both in harmony and dissonance with previous work. We find harmony, for
example, in the OED, which defines discourse as “the body of statements, analysis,
and opinions” (see A7 in Table 1). Other examples are Parker’s definition of
discourse as a “system of statements” and Burr’s definition of discourse as a “set
of meanings, metaphors, representations [etc.]” (see D7 and D9 in Section 2.2). Yet
other similarities are found in Hajer (1995) and Phillips and Hardy (2002), who
define discourse as “a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that
are produced, reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices and
through which meaning is given to physical and social realities” (Hajer 1995) and
“an interrelated set of texts, and the practices of their production, dissemination,
and reception, that brings an object into being” (Phillips and Hardy 2002).
Foucault offers a dissonant understanding, although this is not evident from
his definition of discourse as listed above (see D6), which arguably is compatible
with the definition I propose. However, in connection with his definition of
discourse as “practices which systematically form the object of which we
speak” (Foucault 1972: 49), he express scepticism towards an alternative
approach to defining discourse, namely, “treating discourses as groups of
signs (signifying elements referring to contents or representations)” (Foucault
1972: 49). The approach rejected by Foucault captures, quite precisely, the
definition suggested here. Moreover, Foucault elsewhere writes that “we must
conceive discourse as a series of discontinuous segments whose tactical function
is neither uniform nor stable” (Foucault 1990: 100, emphasis added), a position
that seems to reject the possibility that discourse can be constituted by con-
tinuity, as suggested above (see Sections 5.1 and 5.2.1). Furthermore, Laclau and
Mouffe (1985: 105) interpret Foucault (1972) as rejecting “four hypotheses con-
cerning the unifying principle of a discursive formation – reference to the same
object, a common style in the production of statements, constancy of the con-
cepts, and reference to a common theme.” Again, the principles rejected are the
same as those here considered central to the definition of discourse and the
classification of discourse types.
I suggest that the Foucauldian critique of “group of signs” understandings
of discourse derives from an assumption that somehow the reified interpreta-
tion of discourse as a set excludes an understanding of discourse as productive
(cf. Potter et al. 1990). The primary interest of Foucault and his followers is the
productive effects of discourse, not its status as a product. For example,
discussing various definitions of discourse, Mills, in relation to Foucault’s
work, writes:

Authenticated
198 Max Boholm
One of the most productive ways of thinking about discourse is not as a group of signs or a
stretch of text, but as “practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak”
(Foucault, 1972: 49). In this sense, a discourse is something which produces something else
(an utterance, a concept, an effect), rather than something which exists in and of itself and
which can be analyzed in isolation. (Mills 1997: 17)
However, in response to Mills’ concerns, discourse understood as a set of related

representations is arguably not only a product of communicative behavior. As
reasoned above, sets of related representations can be also productive. Related
representations constitute contexts that influence communication and thinking.
In fact, we can make the stronger claim that discourses are productive because
they are sets of linked representations. How could they otherwise have socio-
logical effects and “form the objects of which we speak”? The question remains,
how can the “practices” of interest be productive and have the kinds of effects
that have interested Foucault and others (e.g., the formation of power relation-
ships and social identities) without being representations, without having
semiotic values, and without being meaningful? Although there is a physical
sense of, for example, power that does not imply any semiotics system (however,
cf. Siefkes 2010), the psychological and social aspects of power seem to do just
that (Mandoki 2004; Siefkes 2010).
Moreover, the above quotation from Mills (1997) suggests that a “group of
signs” definition of discourse implies a methodological commitment, namely,
that discourse “can be analyzed in isolation.” However, no such commitment is
tied to the definition, per se. Defined as a set of related representations, a
discourse can be studied in isolation without paying much attention to its
context, or various contextual dimensions of the discourse in question can be
considered. The definition of discourse as a set of related representations does
not in itself restrict our choice in this regard. Arguably, studies of discourse that
rely heavily on context, as well as those that do not, are both potentially
legitimate and useful.
7 Conclusion
In exploring the discourse of discourse, this article suggests that various defini-
tions and uses of discourse in fact have more in common than is typically
recognized (cf. Coupland and Jaworski 2009; Jørgensen and Phillips 2002;
Mills 1997; Schiffrin et al. 2001b). Many of the various uses of the term can be
understood as systematic variations of the same basic structure. To acknowledge
commonality, rather than diversity, discourse is here defined as a set of related

Authenticated
representations. Moreover, depending on the type of representation constituting

the set and the type of relationship that holds between them, various discourse
types can be discerned corresponding to the more precise definitions of the term.
As such, we can see that various disciplines and research traditions share an
interest in the same concept, and discourse analysis and discourse studies are
thus genuine multidisciplinary fields of academic inquiry sharing a common
object of study, not just a common denominator.
Defined this way, discourse is not restricted to language in general or to any
specific type of language in particular (e.g., spoken or written language).
Furthermore, discourse is seen as both produced (i.e., a product) and productive
(i.e., having effects). In contrast to previous concerns that “group of signs”
definitions of discourse cannot properly handle the productivity of discourse
(Foucault 1972; Laclau and Mouffe 1985; Mills 1997, Potter et al. 1990), I argue
that such a definition is exactly what is needed for an account of the productive
power of discourse.
Acknowledgements: I wish to thank Carola Betzold, Åsa Boholm, Anja Karlsson

Franck, and Neva Leposa for their constructive criticism and suggestions.
Funding: This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council for
Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (grant number 2009–1696).
References
Allwood, Jens & Lars-Gunnar Andersson. 1976. Semantik (Göteborg University LINGuisitcs
[GULING] 1). Göteborg: Department of Linguistics, Göteborg University.
Atkin, Albert. 2010. Peirce’s theory of signs. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/(accessed 3 September 2015).
Baker, Paul & Ellece Sibonile. 2011. Key terms in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.
Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boholm, Max. 2014. Political representations of nano in Swedish government documents.
Science and Public Policy 41(5). 575–596.
Brown, Gillian & George Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burr, Vivien. 1995. An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.
Chandler, Daniel. 2007. Semiotics: The basics. London: Routledge.
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Coupland, Nikolas & Adam Jaworski. 2009. Discourse. In Paul Cobley (ed.), The Routledge
companion to semiotics and linguistics, 134–148. London: Routledge.
Davies, Mark. 2009. The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English: Design,
architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(2),
159–190.

Authenticated
200 Max Boholm
Eco, Umberto. 1979. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Fairclough, Norman. 2001 [1989]. Language and power, 2nd edn. Harlow: Longman.
Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research.
London: Routledge.
Fairclough, Norman. 2013. Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy
Studies 7(2). 177–197.
Fiske, John. 2011 [1982]. Introduction to communication studies. London: Routledge.
Foucault, Michel. 1972. The archaeology of knowledge & the discourse on language,
A. M. Sheridan Smith (trans.). New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, Michel. 1990. The history of sexuality, Robert Hurley (trans.), vol. 1. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Gee, James Paul. 1999. An introduction to discourse analysis. New York: Routledge.
Gee, James Paul. 2011. How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. New York: Routledge.
Hajer, Maarten A. 1995. The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and
the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction
to functional grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold.
Hansson, Sven Ove. 2006. How to define – A tutorial. Princípios, Revista de Filosofia
13(19–20). 5–30.
Hodge, Bob. 1984. Historical semantics and the meanings of “discourse”. Australian Journal of
Cultural Studies 2(2). 124–130.
Holmberg, Per, Anna-Malin Karlsson & Andreas Nord (eds.). 2011. Funktionell textanalys
[Functional text analysis]. Stockholm: Nordstedts.
Hyland, Ken & Brian Paltridge (eds.). 2011. The Bloomsbury companion to discourse analysis.
London: Bloomsbury.
Jørgensen, Marianne & Louise Phillips. 2002. Discourse analysis as theory and method.
London: Sage.
Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of
contemporary communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laclau, Ernesto & Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and socialist strategy. London: Verso.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the
mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lindenfeld, Jacqueline. 1971. Verbal and non-verbal elements in discourse. Semiotica 3(3).
223–233.
Mandoki, Katya. 2004. Power and semiosis. Semiotica 151(1/4). 97–114.
McEnery, Tony. & Andrew Wilson. 2001. Corpus linguistics: An introduction, 2nd edn.
Edingburgh: Edingburgh University Press.
Merriam-Webster. 2014. discourse. Merriam-Webster Online. http://www.merriam-webster.
com/dictionary/discourse (accessed 10 October 2015).
Mills, Sara. 1997. Discourse. London: Routledge.
Morris, Charles W. 1938. Foundations of the theory of signs (International encyclopedia of
unified science 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
OED. 2014. discourse, n. Oxford English Dictionary Online. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/
53985?rskey=w3SYgf&result=1 (accessed 10 October 2015).
Parker, Ian. 1990. Discourse: definitions and contradictions. Philosophical Psychology 3(2).
189–204.

Authenticated
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C. Hartshorne,
P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s
papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.]
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1992 [1867]. On a new list of categories. In Nathan Houser & Christian
Kloesel (eds.), The essential Peirce, vol. 1, 1–10. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1998 [1894]. What is a sign? In Nathan Houser et al. (eds.), The
essential Peirce, vol. 2, 4–10. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Phillips, Nelson & Cynthia Hardy. 2002. Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social
construction. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Potter, Jonathan, Margaret Wetherell, Ros Gill & Derek Edwards. 1990. Discourse: Noun, verb or
social practice? Philosophical Psychology 3(2). 205–217.
Renkema, Jan. 2004. Introduction to discourse studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Robinson, Mairi. 1999. discourse. In Chambers twenty-first century dictionary, 381. Edinburgh:
Chambers Harrap.
Schiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds.). 2001a. The handbook of
discourse analysis. Malden: Blackwell.
Schiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton. 2001b. Introduction. In Deborah
Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis,
1–10. Malden: Blackwell.
Searle, John R. 2010. Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Siefkes, Martin. 2010. Power in society, economy, and mentality: Towards a semiotic theory of
power. Semiotica 181(1/4). 225–261.
Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Thurlow, Crispin & Kristine Mroczek (eds.). 2011. Digital discourse: Language in the new media.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1993. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4(2). 249–283.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1997. What is political discourse analysis? In J. Blommaert & C. Bulcaen (eds.),
Political linguistics, 11–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
van Dijk, Teun A. (ed.) 2011 [2006]. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, 2nd edn.
London: Sage.
Widdowson, Henry G. 2007. Discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Authenticated

Towards A Semiotic Definition of Discourse and A Basis For A Typology of Discourses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Towards A Semiotic Definition of Discourse and A Basis For A Typology of Discourses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Semiotica 2016; 208: 177–201

Keywords: corpus, definition, discourse, semiotics, representation, Peirce

*Corresponding author: Max Boholm, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden,

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

as linguistics, semiotics, psychology, sociology, philosophy, history, social

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

2 Theoretical background: Definitions

2.1 Dictionary definitions

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

Table 1: Dictionary definitions of discourse.

Oxford English Dictionary (OED ):

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

2.2 Theoretical definitions

As a theoretical term, discourse has been ascribed various meanings. Following

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

From these definitions of discourse, we can distinguish three critical issues

2.2.1 Language and discourse

First, in most of the above theoretical definitions, discourse is considered

2.2.2 Types of language and discourse

Given a linguistic interpretation of discourse, a second divide among the above

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

2.2.3 Productivity of discourse and power

A third line of demarcation concerns the productivity of discourse. Discourse is

3 Observations from corpus data

3.1 General remarks

A good definition of a term should at least somewhat reflect how it is actually

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

Word form Spoken Fiction Magazine Newspaper Academic All

discourse (sing.)     , ,

3 In Latin corpus means “body”; the plural form of corpus is corpora.

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

3.3 Adjectives, modifiers, and compounds

3.4 Prepositional phrase complements

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

3.5 Syntactic functions

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

5 A basis for a typology of discourses

5.1 Fundamentals of a typology: Continuity and similarity

I have defined discourse as a set of related representations. I have also suggested

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

(iv) the type of signified element (or content) of the representations

Different sub-types of discourse can be distinguished based on these dimen-

social political discourse

Figure 1: Basic structure of a typology of discourses.

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

5.2 Analytical dimensions of discourse types

5.2.1 Continuity in time and space

According to the OED, one sense of discourse is that of “a connected series of

5.2.2 Shared source and/or recipient

We can distinguish discourse types based on the types of sources of the

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

5.2.3 Shared signifier and/or signified element

As discussed above (Section 4), representations can be classified depending on

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

5.2.4 Shared effects

In the COCA, we find phrases such as critical discourse, painful discourse,

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

5.2.5 Shared ideological or institutional context

A discourse can be produced in a particular psychological and social context,

Brought to you by | Universidad de La Frontera

Ideology: ideological discourse (ideology), absolutist discourse (absolutism), anti-

actors, such as journalists and citizens, to be sources and recipients; we expect