Generally speaking, discourse analysis is the study of the language used; how it works and how meaning is created in different social contexts. There are different approaches; some of them examine the "structure" of the language, others examine the "content" of the language used, that is, the themes of conversation or the written text. Different linguists use different approaches to analyzing discourse; some use a “descriptive” method where they describe how language works in order to understand it, while others take a “critical” approach – critical discourse analysis – where they describe how language works in relation to problems social or political (Gee, 2014, p9). .Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get an original essayThe term “discourse analysis”, in the common sense of the term, refers to the examination of how language works in relation to its social context. Flowerdew believes that the term “discourse” has various implications, but in a broader sense it refers to language in its contexts of use which considers language above the sentence level (2012, p1). He further points out that the term "discourse" can also refer to a particular set of ideas and the way in which they are articulated, for example the discourse on environmentalism, feminism and neoliberalism. Here the term refers to a type of specialized knowledge and language used by a particular social group. Knowing a language is more than just grammar and vocabulary; This includes how to participate in a conversation or how to structure a written text. It is therefore essential to consider the linguistic context in which it occurs, which, in turn, highlights the need for a contextualized and suprassential consideration of language. Paltridge (2014, p3) the relationship between language and context is fundamental in the work of JR Firth and Michael Halliday; Firth argues that to understand the meaning of what a person says or writes, we must know the situation and culture in which it occurs. For him, linguistics is essentially the study of “linguistic events in the social process” (1957, p. 181). Firth (1935) viewed speech in terms of speech functions rather than the situations in which they occur. He argued for the need for “adequate description and classification of situational contexts” (p28). Since language is a way of dealing and behaving with people, it then provides a list of functions such as wishing, blessing, boasting, cursing, praising, flattering, making love, etc. (p31). This discussion is taken further by Halliday (1971) by relating situational context to actual texts and cultural context to potential texts. Halliday further views language as part of a broader sociocultural context, as a "social semiotics" where the aim is "to examine language from the outside and more particularly to interpret linguistic processes from the point of view of the social order” (1978, p3). ).“Discourse analysis” considers a wide range of approaches in various disciplines; It generally refers to a research approach in which linguistic material – spoken or written – is examined as an evidentiary phenomenon beyond the individual person (Taylor, 2013, p2). Rashidi and Rafieerad view discourse analysis as a diverse field of research on speech by shedding light on the functions and structure of language. According to them, it is “the examination of the language used bymembers of a linguistic community. They further add that "it identifies the linguistic features that characterize different genres as well as the social and cultural factors that help us in our interpretation and understanding of different texts and types of discourse." (2010, p95). According to Flowerdew (2012, p3), discourse studies can adopt various analytical approaches, such as register analysis, cohesion, coherence, thematic development, genre analysis, etc. In Britain, discourse analysis was influenced by Halliday's functional approach to language, such as Halliday (1973). Halliday's approach emphasizes the informational structure of speech and writing, as well as the social function of language. American discourse analysis was dominated by work in the ethnomethodological tradition, emphasizing the method of close observation of groups of people communicating in natural contexts such as greeting rituals, storytelling, and so on. This is often called conversation analysis, in the American tradition, where the emphasis is not on building structural models but on carefully observing the behavior of participants in the conversation or to the conversation. Discourse analysis is part of applied linguistics but does not belong exclusively to applied linguistics. he; it is a multidisciplinary field and extremely diverse in its range of interests. For many, interest in discourse goes beyond the use of language and concerns “the use of language in relation to social, political, and cultural formations.” . . , language reflects the social order but also the language that shapes the social order and shapes the interaction of individuals with society. (Trappes, 2004, p133). Taylor (2013, p2) states that discourse analysts work with linguistic data, including speeches, documents and broadcast material. Scholars from different traditions study social interactions and practices, meaning-making and broader meaning systems, and competitions and conflicts around collective identities, social norms, and subjectivation. Brown (1983, p1) states that while a linguist focuses on determining the formal properties of a language, a discourse analyst focuses on the use of that language. Therefore, discourse analysis is a broad area of ​​linguistics where examining spoken and written language can reveal the relationship between the language itself and the contexts in which it is used. It examines the language used: all kinds of written texts, oral data, from conversation to highly institutionalized forms of conversation. Discourse analysis deserves a special subject in linguistics, because these analysts do what people do instinctively and unconsciously in their everyday linguistic experience, such as noticing the language patterns used and the circumstances with which they are associated. It was Zellig Harris, Chomsky's teacher, who coined the term "discourse analysis" in 1952, observing that "language does not appear in stray words or phrases, but in connected discourse – from the statement from a single word to a work in ten volumes”. from a monologue to a Union Square argument” (Harris, 1952, p3). Depending on the context in which it is used, the meaning of the term "discourse" can vary in linguistics. Linguistics, by examining actual authentic speech in relation to context, has gained considerable understanding of how language works. The importance of discourse analysis in linguistics is due to the fact that “it allows applied linguistics to analyze andunderstand real data. Since language is a social and functional phenomenon, discourse studies have contributed much to the general study of language. The data analyzed by linguists can be either oral or written. It has been found that speaking and writing exhibit linguistic complexity and that spoken language is no less structured than written language. Discourse analysis also refers to the study of linguistic structure, that is, beyond the sentence and the study of social practices associated with language or communication. Generally speaking, it can be said that discourse analysis examines communication seen linguistically. Depending on their affiliations and interests, linguists tend to emphasize one or another concept of language in use – language in situational and cultural contexts, language above or beyond the sentence or language in interaction, etc. In other words, (Trappes-Lomax, 2004, p1) discourse analysts help to notice – the language patterns used and the circumstances – deliberately and systematically, to interpret and explain what their investigations have revealed. Discourse analysis is part of applied linguistics and has an essential role to play but it does not belong exclusively to it; it is an extremely diverse and multidisciplinary field. Widdowson argues that to account for discourse one must be clear about the nature of context, because it is only when the linguistic features of the text are linked to contextual factors that discourse is realized (2004, p18). It can be argued that discourse analysis examines the details of speech that people use to convey social meaning through essential components of language, for example, morphology, phonetics, phonology, and syntax. Discourse analysis is of major and immediate interest to language teachers. in the sense that real people use real language rather than artificially created sentences. Language teachers study language use while designing instructional materials or activities to keep learners engaged to make them proficient users of their target language. According to Flowerdew (2012, p2), discourse in English teaching introduces learners to the main concepts and issues of discourse studies and their applications to language learning and teaching. Olshtain and Celce-Murcia (2001, p707) believe that language teaching, like linguistics, used the sentence as the basic unit of analysis for many years during the 20th century; this meant that the rules, activities and exercises focused on individual sentences which may be interesting but which, separated from context, lack real meaning. This was a decontextualized language practice approach in which learners practiced sentences in the target language but were unable to link them to meaningful speech segments. More recent approaches focus on discourse/text, within a broader meaningful context, as the basic unit of analysis. Therefore, learners focus on various discourse features within any language activity. With the popularity of the newer communicative approach to language teaching, learners may never achieve full language proficiency, but will still be able to communicate in the target language. In fact, the teacher and learners in a language class form a discourse community - a group of people sharing some elements such as specific knowledge, culture, language.