Discourse Analysis and Conversation Analysis: A Comparative Theoretical Review

Abstract

This paper presents a theoretical comparison of Discourse Analysis (DA) and Conversation Analysis (CA) with the aim of clarifying their conceptual scope, analytical focus, and methodological orientation. The study examines how both approaches investigate language use while differing significantly in their theoretical assumptions and research objectives. Adopting a qualitative and descriptive research design, the study draws on established linguistic theories and previous scholarly literature rather than empirical data. Discourse Analysis is discussed as a broad analytical framework concerned with discourse, ideology, power relations, and social practice, whereas Conversation Analysis is examined as a micro-level approach focusing on naturally occurring interaction, turn-taking, and sequential organization. The study further argues that although DA and CA are often treated as separate traditions, they are conceptually interconnected in their concern with language as social action. While DA provides a macro-level interpretation of discourse, CA reveals how such meanings are enacted through interactional practices. The significance of the study lies in offering an integrative perspective that helps researchers make informed methodological choices based on research objectives and data type. The study is limited to theoretical discussion and does not involve empirical analysis; however, it provides a foundation for future research to apply this integrated view to real discourse data.