Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Foucault's 'The order of discourse' (1970) or Pecheux's Stating the Obvious: From Semantics to
Discourse (1980). Of course, an easy solution to the problem would be to note that the last two are
translated from the French, but that begs the question, of how these uses of the word in English are to be
calibrated against each other. This is no trivial matter, because clarification of the vocabulary bears on
the clarification of an important enterprise which has been labelled'discourse analysis'. If that enterprise
could be shown to split along the lines of a pun on 'discourse', that would simplify matters greatly, though in
what follows I will suggest that this neat solution is inadequate.
'Discourse' in contemporary English has a wide range of current senses: 'speech; talk; conversation;
treatise; sermon' (Webster). This list should not be taken as the 'meanings' of the word. More exactly, they are a
paradigmatic set of alternative signifiers that can substitute for 'discourse'. What we need to know is the
structural principle of this set, the principle that projects these variants (and others that may be possible) and
the rules that determine its application. These words are like minimally contrasting pairs, in linguistic
terms, rather than equivalents. They provide the basis for a reconstruction of the system at issue, a system
which is mystified and concealed by the typical dictionary listing.
At the beginning of the OED entry is etymological information: the derivation in this case from
French discours, and behind that a Latin root, discurs-us. Williams uses two notations: fw ('immediate
forerunner word') and rw ('root word: ultimate traceable word, from which "root'' meanings are derived').
Of these two, it is rw which most needs a sharper definition. 'Ultimate traceability' suggests an endless journey
backwards in time, with no particular terminus in view, and no clear motive for the search. Why stop at Latin?
Why not go back to Sanscrit, or proto Indoeuropean? However, the task can be seen as analogous to
transformational analysis (see Kress and Hodge, 1979). In these terms, we would expect interpretation of a
word to hypothetically reconstruct a series of transformations, working back from features of the surface
form which seem to require them. What is at issue is not a genuine etymology, such as OED offers, but a
mystified, fragmentary folk-form of it. So the function of a scientific etymology is to supply the missing
information that this interpretative strategy has to invent. The regressive movement, the tracing of
derivations, can stop when it reaches solid ground. This solid ground, we will assume, is the point of
connection of the word with material processes, with direct reference to an aspect of material and social
reality. Williams points out that the words like barber orbarley or barn do not cause the problems he is
concerned to elucidate: only words which invoke values and ideas, which typically have a whole range of
meanings.
125 Aust. J. Cultural Studies, 2:2 (1984)
With 'discourse', OED gives us a Latin word as root, 'L. discurs-us is f. discurs - ppl. stem of discurrere.'
This is on the way to the proper level, because it gives the concrete 'running to and fro.' But discurs-us needs
to be further decomposed, since it is already a complex syntagm, the end product of a series of transformations
which are precisely what we need to understand, dis carries the sense of duality (it is etymologi-cally related to
that word, and to bis, which survives in words like binary. From that it gains the sense of separation into two.
This sense of dis is not just enshrined in classical Latin usage. As a morpheme it crops up in many English
words (e.g. discord, dissect, dispute, disperse, discern, discriminate) and by this means it has force
in contemporary English. Currere is normally translated as 'to run', but it refers more generally to something
that moves quickly, whether on foot, or by horse, ship, etc. Curs-us,however, comes from the past participle
of the verb: 'having been run. 'In Latin, currere can take as its object either a word for the process (e.g. a
journey, race) or a word for the setting (e.g. a stadium, road or the ocean), cursus is a noun derived from this
participle. It continues this double meaning, referring either to the process (usually swift) or to the track or route
which,
precisely
by being
fixed,
well-trodden
and
well-known,
enables
that
swiftness. Transformationallyspeaking, the word incorporates two alternative objects of the verb. The
verb discurrere acquires the full set of preconditions for becoming the root of 'discourse' when the
physical action is used to describe two specific agents: a mind (moving backwards and forwards in
thought) or a speech (moving either between two speakers, or between two viewpoints included in the
one speech) both of these related to polemical uses of language and thought, in law or debating, plus an
implied context for their activity. When these two agents are incorporated as the implied subjects of
the actions, the concept of 'discourse' is complete, and ready for transmission to a different culture and a
different time.
We can set out the transformational process as follows:
dis-
+ cur
From this derivation we can see that the final concept contains latent in it, as part of its deep structure, a series
of contradictions: between movement (the flow of thought or speech) and stasis as the basis of that movement;
between thought and speech; between physical and intellectual action; and between separation of elements
and the unity of movement. But by holding all these in suspension, as part of the deep structure of the one
word, discursus achieves an apparent resolution of them all. Its effect is to blur all these distinctions,
or transcend them. So intellectual and physical activity, speech and thought, process and rule become
one, or at least their differences
Here Foucault is developing a concept of discourse genres, which range from informal to formal, free
flowing to fixed, process to precondition, action to meaning, thus dispersing the features of discourse
over a range of kinds of discourse: though no one kind represents a pure term in any of the opposing
features that 'discourse' exists to unite.
This quotation by no means exhausts Foucault's concern with 'discourse'. His whole enterprise could be
called 'discourse analysis', and the word contains the formula for the programme. He sees discourse as a
system of rules for exclusion, appropriation and control of speech and thought. Part of his programme, then,
studies these rules and their effects. But another part looks at discourse as process: at its formation, its
relation to institutions and power structures, at the principle of opposition it both masks and expresses, and
at the objects of discourse which are distorted by the to-and-fro tug of discourse and its needs. He insists on
the power of discourse structures constrain speech and thought, and on the effects of power and struggle on
these structures: on the regularity yet indeterminacy of discourse: on thought as both confined yet resisting
speech. In short, he claims afresh for 'discourse' all the opportunities achieved two thousand years before by
the Latin discursus.
There is another framework we need to fit 'discourse' into, which OED gives us little help with, but
which a materialist form of historical semantics must recognize. The following diagram represents
schematically the primary relationships at issue.
Paradigmatic set Social structure
REFERENCES
Benveniste, E. (1971) Problems in General Linguistics, Miami: University of Miami Press.
Coulthard, R.M. and Montgomery, M., (1981) Studies in Discourse
Analysis, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Foucault, M. (1970) 'The order of discourse', in Archaelogy of Knowledge, London: Tavistock.
Kress, G. and Hodge, R. (1979) Language as Ideology, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Halliday, M. (1976) System and Function in Language, London: Oxford University Press.
Harris, Z. (1952) 'Discourse analysis', Language 28.
McCabe, C. (1981) 'On discourse', in The Talking Cure, London: Macmillan.
Pecheux, M. (1980) Stating the obvious: from semantics to discourse, London: Macmillan.
Williams, R. (1976) Keywords, London: Fontana.