Your question is very general, but most relevant. It is indeed essential to be aware of these differences.

The general tendency is a move away from language as structure towards language use with references to Wittgenstein (meaning as use) and speech act theory (speaking as acting; how to do things with words).

A first important publication was Foucaults "L'ordre du discours" (introductiry lecture at the Collège de France in 1970). Foucault's poststructuralist and postmodernist theory links discourse to implicit power structures.

The power perspective is not general in discourse analysis. Researchers coming from different disciplines take different angles. Sociologists put the emphasis on sense construction, whereas linguists stress the pragmatic aspect by opposing text and discourse. In both cases a reconstruction of social reality via text analysis is an important point. Norman Fairclogh "Discourse and Social Change" (1992) provides a practical overview.

The discourse concept of Habermas and Apel is different from the fore mentioned line. There focus is on communicative acting.

Dear Oscar Rubio,

There are certainly different perspectives guiding discourse analysis since language is an influential factor dominating human emotions and actions. Clearly, the text is only the surface manifestation of discourse- it is the tip of the iceberg. Discourse analysis helps to unravel and fathom out macro-elements that stand quite aloof from the text itself.As such, discourse analysis may be approached from two different perspectivizations: from within and from without. The former involves a pragmalinguistic analysis whereas the latter entails a sociopragmatic investigation. Pragmalinguistic analysis focuses on the features of the text or texture. Language system structural elements related to the context of situation or register may be used as a point of reference to analyze a given text (e.g, metadiscourse markers, hedges, nominalized structures, etc.) By contrast, sociopragmatic analysis concentrates on sociocultural and socioideological factors hidden in the text and indirectly signaled by lexicogrammer mechanisms.

Wish you good luck in the wonderful world of discourse analysis.

Best regards,

R. Biria

Hi Oscar,

my books and articles on RG may provide some reflections, and ideas. 

best wishes

ali

Hi Oscar,

my books and articles on RG may provide some reflections, and ideas. 

best wishes

ali

Hi Oscar,

my books and articles on RG may provide some reflections, and ideas. 

best wishes

ali

Dear Oscar ,

As others have said this is a huge question.

I suggest you consult the book Perspectives on Discourse Analysis by Laura Alba-Juez (2009). She distinguishes:

Pragmatics

Interactional Sociolinguistics

Conversation Analysis

The Ethnography of Communication

Variation Analysis and Narrative Analysis

Functional Sentence Perspective: Thematic and Information Structures

Post Structuralist theory and Social Theory

Critical Discourse Analysis and Positive Discourse Analysis

Mediated Discourse Analysis

I have attached a sample of the book. I hope this helps. Best wishes,

Lachlan

Thank you for your response. I find them very useful for the direction of my analysis.

I also suggest that you read the preface of Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives, edited by Ann Johns, which shows approaches to Genre Analysis and Discourse analysis.

Best,

Thank you Solange. I already downloaded the file and I began reading the book.

gratitude , solange.

gratitude , solange.

, ‘Discourse’ to a conversational analyst is basically social interaction; hence discourse analysis (DA) is the study of what speakers do and how they do it, how speakers take turns, and how this reveals speakers roles, their patterns of individual relationships, and their positions within larger institutional structures (Trask, 1999). To those doing interactional sociolinguistics, discourse is a means of studying how culture influences or controls interactional moves. Hence, DA analyzes how socio-cultural meanings and practices are played out in discourse. To those who view discourse as the medium for the expression of ideology, power and domination (i.e. critical discourse analysts), discourse is defined in terms of preferential access to and control over public discourse by social groups or organizations. Here DA focuses on the study of domination or power abuse based on ideology, gender, class, ethnicity, or sexuality (van Dijk, 2006). To those who view discourse as social semiosis, discourse goes beyond the use of human languages to include visual images, gestures, proxemics, symbols, sounds, colours and other forms of multimodal discourse. Thus, DA investigates how the various semiotic activities communicate meanings in the context of people and situations. These and other different assumptions and approaches to DA acknowledge that discourse must be contextually situated reflecting social situations of people’s everyday lives and experiences among others (See Van Dijk's Discourse studies: a multidisciplinary introduction).

Dear Oscar Rubio

Sometimes I work with Legal discourse which intends to make everybody equal in the face of the law and within the idea of “transparency” of language and which naturalizes the inequalities within social formations and put apart subjects with low literacy degree. The theorie of Discourse Analysis (PÊCHEUX, 1988) brings into focus the social, ideological and psychological path of the discourse, as well as the ritualized means of hegemonic subjugation. In this theory, the subject of discourse is an effect of language, and there is not only one possible meaning as legal discourse intends to show.

Thank you. Now I am getting a broader picture about the complexity of DA. And I find it very interesting.

These publications may also help  : 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273697630_A_Critical_Discourse_Analysis_of_Discursive_Structures_in_a_Political_Text

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rahimi_Ali/publications?sorting=newest&page=3

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rahimi_Ali/publications

Article A Critical Discourse Analysis of Discursive Structures in a ...

These publications may also help  : 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273697630_A_Critical_Discourse_Analysis_of_Discursive_Structures_in_a_Political_Text

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rahimi_Ali/publications?sorting=newest&page=3

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rahimi_Ali/publications

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273697377_The_Interplay_between_Critical_Pedagogy_and_Critical_Thinking_Theoretical_ties_and_practicalities

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251713098_Gender_representation_in_EFL_materials_An_analysis_of_English_textbooks_of_Iranian_high_schools

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273697480_Instrumental_motivation_critical_thinking_autonomy_and_academic_achievement_of_Iranian_EFL_learners

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273646208_Towards_a_more_efficient_EFL_reading_comprehension_classroom_environment_The_role_of_content_and_critical_reading

Article A Critical Discourse Analysis of Discursive Structures in a ...

Article The Interplay between Critical Pedagogy and Critical Thinkin...

Article Gender representation in EFL materials: An analysis of Engli...

Article Instrumental motivation, critical thinking, autonomy and aca...

Conference Paper Towards a more efficient EFL reading comprehension classroom...

Dear Oscar,

I'm more into Content Analysis, however, couple of months ago I started to explore Discourse analysis and found this book:

Coulthard, M. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis. Routledge.

Specially, discourse analysis is so wide that structuring might be too risky. As the book I recommend explains, you might organized it in this way:

1. Speech acts.

2. Etnography of speaking

3. Conversational analysisis

4. Intonation

5. Linguistic approach

Actually, I'm using conversational analysis, you might also read Bateson and "Dear Holy" Goffman- Frame analysis.

Best regards