OUTLINE
1. INTRODUCTION.
1.1. Aims of the unit.
1.2. Notes on bibliography.
2. A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR DISCOURSE ANALYSIS STRATEGIES.
2.1. The concept of discourse.
2.1.1. On defining discourse .
2.1.2. Main types.
2.1.2.1. Oral vs. written.
2.1.2.2. Formal vs. informal.
2.1.3. Discourse and communicative context.
2.2. The concept of discourse analysis.
2.2.1. On defining discourse analysis.
2.2.2. Main types.
2.2.3. Related notions.
2.2.3.1. The notion of cohesion.
2.2.3.2. The notion of coherence.
2.2.3.3. Pragmatics, discourse analysis and language teaching.
2.3. The concept of strategies.
2.3.1. On defining communicative strategies.
2.3.2. A typology of language learning strategies.
3. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS STRATEGIES.
3.1. On defining discourse analysis strategies.
3.2. Discourse and strategic competence.
3.3. A typology of strategies on discourse analysis.
3.4. The analysis and articulation of discourse.
3.4.1. Linguistic devices.
3.4.1.1. Cohesion: formal links.
3.4.1.2. Coherence: contextual links.
3.4.2. Nonlinguistic devices.
3.4.3. Paralinguistic devices.
4. EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING.
4.1. The Communicative Approach: a basis for discourse analysis.
4.2. New directions in discourse analysis.
5. CONCLUSION.
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY.
1. INTRODUCTION.
1.1. Aims of the unit.
The main aim of Unit 39 is to examine discourse analysis strategies, that is, the main strategies that come into force in discourse analysis. Our aim then is to link the notions of discourse, discourse analysis and communicative strategies to its importance in society, and especially, in the language teaching community, from its origins to present-day studies. So we shall offer a broad account in descriptive terms of how communication events occur in both spoken and written forms, and how listeners and reader interpret the messages they receive in a social, cognitive and linguistic context. This presentation will start by offering the most relevant bibliography in this field as a reference for the reader, and by presenting our study in five main chapters.
Chapter 2 will be divided then into three main sections which correspond to the three mentioned concepts. Therefore, the first one will offer an approach to (1) the term ‘discourse’ by offering (a) a definition, (b) main types: (i) oral vs. written discourse and (ii) formal vs. informal discourse, and (c) its relationship with the communicative context in pragmatic terms; then, we shall examine (2)
‘discourse analysis’ by offering (a) a definition and (b) related notions such as (i) cohesion, (ii) coherence and (iii) the relationship between pragmatics, discourse analysis and language teaching. . Finally, we shall examine (3) the notion of ‘strategies’ within the educational field and again we shall offer (a) a definition of the term ‘strategies’ in relation to language teaching and its (b) main types, from which we shall get the concept of discourse analysis strategies.
Chapter 3 shall approach the analysis of discourse strategies by (1) defining discourse analysis strategies, analysing (2) discourse and strategies in terms of competences, by offering (3) a typology of strategies on discourse analysis and approaching (4) the analysis and articulation of discourse by offering (a) an analysis of linguistic features regarding (i) cohesion (formal links) in terms of grammatical, lexical, phonological and graphological devices; and (ii) an analysis of coherence (contextual links) concerning language functions, Grice’s cooperative principles and the notions of turn-taking and adjacency pairs, among others. In addition, we shall analyse the main (b) nonlinguistic devices as well as (c) paralinguistic ones.
Chapter 4 will be devoted to present the main educational implications in language teaching
regarding the main strategies to analyse discourse. So, we shall examine the model for a Communicative Approach which is considered to be a basis for discourse analysis and new directions in this respect. Chapter 5 will offer a conclusion to broadly overview our present study, and Chapter 6 will include all the bibliographical references used to develop this account of discourse analysis strategies.
1.2. Notes on bibliography.
An influential introduction to the analysis of discourse is based on relevant works of Cook, Discourse (1989); van Dijk, Text and Context (1984) and Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse (1981); Brown and Yule, Discourse Analysis (1983); and Olshtain & Celce-Murcia , Discourse and Context in Language Teaching (2001). Moreover, notes on the analysis and articulation of discourse are namely taken from Beaugrande and Dressler, Introduction to Text Linguistics (1988); still indispensable, Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion in English (1976); Leech & Short, Style in Fiction (1987); Moody, Literary Appreciation (1987) and Cook, Discourse (1989).
Classic works on the influence of semantics, pragmatics and sociolinguistic on discourse analysis, include van Dijk, Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse (1981); Hymes, Communicative Competence (1972) and Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach (1974); Halliday, Explorations in the Functions of Language (1975) and Spoken and Written Language (1985); and Searle, Speech Act (1969). The contributions on strategies in discourse analysis is namely drawn from Faerch & Kasper, Strategies in Interlanguage Communication (1983); Ellis, Understanding Second Language Acquisition (1985); Wenden & Rubin, Learner Strategies in Language Learning (1987); Richards & Platt, Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (1992); Hismanoglu, Language Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching (2000); and Murphy, On Teaching Communicative Strategies in the Classroom (2003).
The background for educational implications is based on the theory of communicative competence and communicative approaches to language teaching are provided by Canale, From Communicative
Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy (1983); Canale and Swain, Theoretical bases
of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing (1980); Hymes, On communicative competence (1972); Hedge Tricia, Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom (2000); Widdowson, Teaching Language as Communication (1978); and Rivers, Teaching Foreign-Language Skills (1981).
In addition, the most complete record of current publications within the educational framework is provided by the guidelines in B.O.E. (2002); the Council of Europe, Modern Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. A Common European Framework of reference (1998); Hedge Tricia, Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom (2000); and Olshtain & Celce-Murcia, Discourse and context in language teaching (2001).
2. A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR DISCOURSE ANALYSIS STRATEGIES.
Before analysing discourse analysis strategies, it is essential to conceptualize the three concepts involved in this notion, that is, discourse, discourse analysis and its relationship with the term strategie s. So, we shall offer a theoretical framework so as to define these notions and examine several key concepts involved in their definition.
Chapter 2 will be divided then into three main sections which correspond to the three mentioned concepts. Therefore, t he first one will offer an approach to (1) the term ‘discourse’ by offering (a) a definition, (b) main types: (i) oral vs. written discourse and (ii) formal vs. informal discourse, and (c) its relationship with the communicative context in pragmatic terms ; then, we shall examine (2) the concept of discourse analysis by offering (a) a definition, (b) main types and (c) related notions such as (i) cohesion, (ii) coherence and (iii) the relationship between pragmatics, discourse analysis and language teaching. Finally, we shall examine (3) the notion of ‘strategies’ by offering (a) a definition of the term ‘strategies’ in relationto language teaching and (b) a typology of language learning strategies.
2.1. The concept of discourse.
2.1.1. On defining discourse .
The term discourse comes into force when we deal with the highest grammatical level of analysis in the rank scale, that is, paragraphs and texts in oral or written texts. Cook (1989:6) defines
‘discourse’ as ‘language in use, for communication’ and Crystal (1992:25) as ‘a continuous stretch
of language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit’. In both definitions, language does not occur in solitary words or sentences (simple, complex and compound) in grammatical terms, but in sequences of sentences, that is, utterances in terms of meaning and use in connected discourse which go beyond the sentence into the level of paragraphs and texts.
The term discourse traces back to Latin discursus which means a conversation . In general, it refers to a talk, conversation, dialogue, lecture, sermon, or treatise whereas in linguistics, it is related to a unit or piece of connected speech or writing that is longer than a conventional sentence. In 1960s, the term discourse is related to the analysis of connected speech and writing, and their relationship to the contexts in which they are used. Discourse analysts studied, then, written texts, conversation, institutionalized forms of talk, and communicative events in general.
Early researchers as Zellig Harris 1 in the US in the 1950s, were interested in the distribution of elements in extended texts and the relationship between a text and its social situation. In the 1960s, the American linguistic anthropologist Dell Hymes studied speech in its social setting as a form of addres). The work of British linguistic philosophers such as J. L. Austin, J. R. Searle, and H. P. Grice was influential in the study of language as social action, through speech-act theory, conversational maxims, and pragmatics (the study of meaning in context) in general.
In the 1970s, research in the United Kingdom was influenced by the functional approach to language of M. A. K. Halliday, in turn influenced by the Prague School. His systemic linguistics emphasizes the social functions of language and the thematic and informational structure of speech
and writing. Halliday related grammar at the clause and sentence level to situational constraints,
1 In fact, it was the linguist Zellig Harris which coined the term ‘Discourse Analysis’ in 1952. The term appeared for the first time in an article entitled ‘Discourse Analysis’ in which he analysed an advertisement for hair tonic –from which he coyly omitted the brand name – and set abo ut searching for grammatical rles to explain why one sentence followed another.
referred to as field (purpose of communication), tenor (relationships among participants), and mode
(channels of communication).
Parallel studies were taking place in America by relevant figures in this field, such as John Gumperz and Dell Hymes. Their research included the examination of forms of talk such as storytelling, greeting, and verba l duels in different cultural and social settings. Alongside the conversation analysts, in the sociolinguistic tradition, William Labov’s studies of oral narrative have contributed to a more general knowledge of narrative structure. Such work has generated a variety of descriptions of discourse organization as well as studies of social constraints on politeness and face-preserving phenomena. These overlap with British work in pragmatics.
2.1.2. Main types.
Within discourse typology, we distinguish two ma in types of discourse or texts which are represented by spoken and written language and other two further typology based on formal and informal style. The main reason for this duality is to be found some forty or fifty thousand years ago with the appearance of language. However, language, primary oral, changed into writing around
3500 B.C. (the date of the Sumerian inscriptions in Mesopotamia and early Egyptian inscriptions)
and revolutioned the way of viewing history since it was an attempt to preserve and memorise for the future the narratives of the past, by means of literature productions, printing and modern audiovisual and computing media.
2.1.2.1. Oral vs. written.
With respect to both codes of communication (Widdowson 1978), oral and written, it is worth noting that one of their differences relies on the notion of participants and different skills, thus productive and receptive, to be carried out in a one-way process or two-way process. Hence, regarding written communication, we refer to writer and reader, when they are involved in the productive skill of writing and the receptive skill of reading. Similarly, we refer to speaker and listener, when they are involved in the productive skill of speaking and the receptive skill of listening.
Furthermore, within a traditional division of language into the two major categories of speech and
writing, Cook (1989) establishes two main differences. The first difference is described in terms of time factor , that is, a here-and-now production; and the second difference is depicted in terms of degree of reciprocity , that is, one-way speech or two-way speech. There are certain features regarding these differences that are likely to happen within each category depending on the nature of the activity.
1. Concerning the time factor, we may find features such as time limitations, and the associated problems of planning , memory, and of production.
First, regarding time limitations, spoken language happens in time, and must therefore be produced and processed ‘on line’. In writing, however, we have time to pause and think, and while we are reading or writing, we can stand back and view the discourse in spatial or diagrammatic terms.
Secondly, in relation to planning, the speaker has no time to plan and organize the message as there is no going back and changing or restructuring our words, whereas the writer may plan his writing under no time pressure, and the message is economically organized.
Thirdly, regarding memory, on spoken interaction we may forget things we intended to say whereas on writing we may note our ideas and organize the development of our writing.
Finally, concerning production, on speaking we often take short cuts to avoid unnecessary effort in producing individual utterances, and therefore we make syntactic mistakes because we lose the wording. On the contrary, on writing, the words are planned and organized while producing a text, allowing the writer to control the language being used. Hence, sentences may be long or complex as the writer has more time to plan. Moreover, mistakes are less likely to happen as we are aware of the grammar of our utterances.
2. The second feature to be mentioned is a reciprocal activity, in terms of one-way speech or two-way speech. This crucially affects the sorts of reactions at a communicative level that are likely to take place in an interaction.
Thus, in speaking, the person we are speaking to is in front of us and able to put us right if we make a mistake; on the contrary, the writer has to anticipate the reader’s
understanding and predict potential problems. If the writer gets this wrong, the reader
may give up the book in disgust before getting far.
Moreover, regarding reactions, both speakers may show agreement and understanding, or incomprehension and disagreement to each other whereas readers have no way of signalling this to the writer. Therefore, readers have to put in some compensatory work in order to make their reading successful, either skip, or else work very carefully. Both readers and writers need patience and imagination at a communicative level.
2.1.2.2. Formal vs. informal.
This traditional division of language into the spoken and the written is clearly and sensibly based on a difference in production and reception. Yet as far as discourse structure is concerned, we have to take into account a more fundamental distinction between formal, planned discourse, which may be either written or spoken, and less formal, unplanned discourse which (either spoken or written) is usually associated with speech. According to Cook (1989:50), “Informal spoken discourse is something in which the modern foreign language learner, with opportunities for travel and social contact, is most likely to wish to succeed, but also the discourse type he or she is likely to find hardest, precisely because it is so informal and unpredictable”.
2.1.3. Discourse and communicative context.
Discourse’ then represents ‘the complex picture of the relations between language and action in communicative contexts’ which account for the func tions of utterances with underlying textual structures’ (van Dijk, 1981). This sequence of utterances usually takes place in a communicative context. The term context is defined as ‘the state of affairs of a communicative situation in which communicative events take place’ (van Dijk, 1981) and must have a linguistically relevant set of characteristics for the formulation, conditions and rules for the adequate use of utterances, for instance, it must be ‘appropriate’ and‘satisfactory’ for the given utterance.
The notion of context is rather static when it is merely used to refer to a state of affairs. Hence we
may introduce the term ‘communicative’ so that an event may be successful if a given context changes into a specific new context (i.e. speaking face to face vs. speaking on the phone). Generally speaking, we may say that conditions for morphonological, syntactic and sematic well-formed utterances may change from oral contexts to written ones. Thus utterances which are formally appropriate with respect to their contexts, may not be actually ‘acceptable’ in concrete communicative situations, and conversely.
As we can see , its overriding focus is on context and on the behavioural patterns that structure the social functions of language, above and beyond the construction of structural models. So
‘discourse’ consists of meaningful combinations of language units which serve various communicative purposes and perform various acts in various contexts. Hence, the discipline that studies the relationship between language and the contexts in which discourse is used is Discourse Analysis (DA).
2.2. The concept of discourse analysis .
2.2.1. On defining discourse analysis.
The term ‘discourse analysis’ can be defined as the study of the relationship between language and the contexts in which it is used (also called ‘the study of conversation’). Whereas ‘discourse’ as such is defined as ‘language in use, for communication’, ‘discourse analysis’ is defined as ‘the search for what gives discourse coherence’ (Cook, 1989:6). So, what gives coherence to a text? For students to know how to communicate and interact in their own language, formal skills (pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar) as well as nonlinguistic (face, body) and paralinguistic devices (sounds, images, vocal quality) are not enough.
It is the field of pragmatics which provides us with the rest of skills (time, world – social and physical-, language, and thought –knowledge and reasoning-) as a means of relating stretches of language to the physical, socia l, and psychological world in which they take place. Discourse then is the place where all these elements, formal and pragmatic, interact to give meaning and unity to a text. Hence, discourse analysis’ main aim is to search for these formal and pragmatic links which
give cohesion (meaning) and coherence (sense and unity) to a text so as to present a meaningful
stretch of language.
Therefore, we may define ‘discourse analysis’ as both a process and a product. The process is realized by the main language functions, that is, the purpose of communication following pragmatic guidelines (coherence links) whereas the product is realized by the content involved in that process (cohesive links). At this point it is crucial to relate discourse analysis to these key concepts (function and form, coherence and cohesion) since they will help us understand the main core of this study. In fact, the main strategies which are used to analyse discourse are based on the notions of cohesion and coherence (to be fully developed further on).
So, let us briefly examine, first, the main types of discourse analysis and secondly, three related notions: cohesion, coherence and finally, the relationship between pragmatics, discourse analysis and language teaching , which shall lead us directly to the concept of strategies in learning a foreign language.
2.2.2. Main types.
Among the most relevant types of discourse analysis we may highlight :
(1) Content Analysis, which examines how a text repeats thematic patterns of formations. This type of discourse analysis focuses on form and, therefore, on linguistic and nonlinguistic devices such as grammar, voculary and pronunciation which represent the fields of morphology, phonology, lexis, syntax and semantics.
(2) Speech Act Analysis, which focuses not on the form but rather on the function. In other words, an analysis of speech acts highlights the main functions of language depending on the purpose of the speaker/writer rather than the content (vocabulary, grammar). So, it emphasizes Gricean’s cooperative principles and the notions of adjacency pairs and turn- taking.
(3) Frame Analysis, which focuses on the type of activity that the speaker is engaged with when he or she utters a sentence. This type of analysis points out the choice the author
makes w hen producing a text : drama, news, story-telling, poetry (i.e. Orson Wells’ War of
the Worlds, news frame or drama frame?
(4) Finally, Critical Discourse Analysis gives prominence to the dynamics of power and discourse, that is, it studies the way social forces are enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social context.
2.2.3. Related notions.
2.2.3.1. The notion of cohesion.
The term ‘cohesion’ concerns the ways in which the components of the surface text (the actual words we hear or see) are mutually connected within a sequence of utterances (Beaugrande & Dressler, 1988), that is, intra-text linking devices which are connected to extra-textual reference. This notion consists of a series of ‘formal links’ (Cook, 1989:14), known as cohesive links, which organise the text through the stratal organization of language which can be explained as a multiple coding system comprising three levels of coding: the semantic one (meanings), the lexicogrammatical (forms: grammar and vocabulary) and the phonological and orthographic one (expressions: sounding and writing).
Moreover, Halliday and Hasan, in their ground- breaking work Cohesion in English (1976), described ‘cohesion’ as a semantic concept that refers to relations of meaning that exist within a text. In other words, it is ‘a semantic relation between an element in the text and some other element that is crucial to the interpretation of it’. These two elements are defined as the ‘presupposing’ and the ‘presupposed’. Both of them may be structurally related to each other or may be not. The first elements may be found in the text but its location in the text is in no way determined by the second element.
It must be borne in mind that in spoken English certain types of grammatical cohesion are in their turn expressed through the intonation system (i.e. Did she hurt your feelings? She didn’t mean to). In this example, the second sentence not only shows the cohesive device of ellipsis with ‘She didn’t mean to’ but also with by the ellipsis of conjunction since the adversative meaning of ‘but’ is expressed by the rising-falling tone.
2.2.3.2. The notion of coherence.
The term cohesion is often confused or conflated with coherence. But it is necessary, both from a theoretical and a practical point of view to retain this distinction between surface (coherence) and content (cohesion). The term coherence concerns ‘the ways in which the components of the textual world, thus the concepts and relations which underlie the surface text, are mutually accessible and relevant’ (Beaugrande & Dressler, 1988).
Coherence is a purely semantic property of discourse, while cohesion is mainly concerned with morpho-syntactic devices in discourse. A coherent text is a semantically connected, integrated whole, expressing rela tions of closeness, thus, causality, time, or location between its concepts and sentences. A condition on this continuity of sense is that the connected concepts are also related in the real world, and that the reader identifies the relations.
In a coherent text, there are direct and indirect semantic referential links between lexical items in and between sentences, which the reader must interpret. A text must be coherent enough for the interlocutor to be able to interpret. It seems probable that this coherence can be achieved either through cohesion, for instance, markers and clues in the speakers’ text, or through the employment of the user-centred textuality standards of intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality and intertextuality.
These markers are defined as all the devices which are needed in writing in order to produce a text in which the sentences are coherently organised so as to fulfil the writer’s communicative purpose. Byrne (1979) claims that they refer to words or phrases which indicate meaning relationships between or within sentences, such as those of addition, contrast (antithesis), comparison (similes), consequence, result, and condition expressed by the use of short utterances, and exemplification (imagery and symbolism).
Within the context of textual analysis, we may mention from a wide range of rethorical devices the use of imagery and symbolism; hyperbole, antithesis, similes and metaphors; onomatopoeias, alliteration and the use of short utterances for rhythm and effect; repetition and allusion to drawn the reader’s attention; and cacophony and slang to make the piece of writing lively and dynamic.
2.2.3.3. Pragmatics, discourse analysis, and language teaching.
As stated above, the nature of discourse is not only approached from the fields of syntax and semantics but also from the field of pragmatics which, together, prove essential in Discourse Analysis (DA). Nowadays, the questions of use (pragmatics) are freely treated in syntax and semantics and the notions of ‘cohesion’ and ‘coherence’, usually related to semantics, can be also helpful when studying a text only if they deal with how connections and relations are actually set up among communicative contexts.
Then, pragmatics explores the attitudes of producers by means of the seven standards of textuality:
‘intentionality’ (the goal-directed use of conversation) and receivers by means of ‘acceptability’ (inmmediate feedback), and ‘informativity’ (the choice of contributions to conversation). In addition, the communicative setting is described in terms of ‘situationality’ (particularly direct communicative context; intonation contours) and ‘intertextuality’ (text types in operation, that is, how to frame your text in regard to other people’s texts in the same dis course).
Moreover, semantics explores the relationship between syntactic structures (and therefore grammatical categories building phrases, sentences and clauses) and the logical relationship between them in a text by means of coherence (process) and cohesion (product) having as a result the whole text under the shape of a pragmatic coherent discourse. But how do we relate pragmatics and discourse analysis to language teaching?
The theory of the pragmatic interpretation of language focuses on how people create meaning and make sense of what is said in specific circumstances. The fact that meaning is not constructed from the formal language of the message alone is crucial for the successful teaching and learning of foreign languages. The relevance of pragmatic theories in language learning is really twofold.
(1) Firstly, according to Cook (1989:41), “the divergence of function and form means that we cannot rely upon teaching only form” since in production, “learners need to choose the words which most suitably realize their intention”, not always entailing the most closely related form. On the other hand, in reception of language, they also need to be albe to move from the form to the function. Therefore, there are times when making language function effective ly is more important than producing perfectly pronounced, grammatically correct sentences.
(2) Secondly, “the linking of form to function may help learners to orientate themselves within
a discourse. All learners of a foreign language are familiar with the dis turbing sensation of understanding every word, and the literal meaning, but somehow missing the point. The underlying structure of the discourse may be a progression of functional units, and a breakdown in pragmatic interpretation may easily lead to a learner losing his or her way” (1989:42).
Such attention to ‘function’, ‘structure’, ‘form’ and ‘organization’ is characteristic of virtually all contemporary approaches to discourse analysis. Some of these approaches are said to be very sophisticated and detailed, and may be very technical, as is the case of much work on the grammatical structures of sentences and sequences of sentences in discourse. Note that such a
‘structural’ analysis (based on form and function) need not be limited to fixed or abstract structures,
but may also focus on the more dynamic aspects of discourse organization, such as the mental, interactional or social strategies participants engage in.
Thus, we may analyse the abstract structures of a story (content, product) but also moves (process, functional elements, the activation of knowledge ) and strategies so as to characterise the discourse as a whole. So, discourse analysis is an explicit, systematic account of analysis of structures (content, cohesive ties), processes of text (theoretical notions) and strategies (activation of knowledge) developed in any branch of the field.
Discourse analysis and pragmatics are relevant to language teaching and language learning since they represent two related discourse worlds that characterize human communication. The first represents intended meaning transmitted within context and is, therefore, concerned with sequential relationships in production; and the other explains the interpreted meaning resulting from linguistic processing and social interaction, all the while taking into account a variety of contextual factors, at the receptive end.
So language teaching needs to focus on both (1) strategies of message construction to facilitate learner production of the communicative intent and (2) strategies of interpretation, in order to ensure some ability on the learner’s part to process inferentially the speaker or writer’s intent. Actually, this will be the issue of next section, that is, to analyse the main strategies that take place in discourse analysis under the framework of language teaching and, therefore, prepare the ground
for the core of this study: discourse analysis strategies within our current communicative approach
in educational terms.
2.3. The concept of strategies.
This section aims at emphasizing the relevance of language learning strategies in foreign language learning and teaching (so as to apply it later to the description of dis course analysis strategies) and provides (1) a definition of the concept ‘language learning strate gy’ within a language learning background. It also outlines (2) the typology of language learning strategies by means of which we shall focus on the type of (3) discourse analysis strategies.
2.3.1. On defining communicative strategies .
The description of the term ‘strategies’ must be linked to that of the ‘communicative approach’ and
‘communicative strategies’ in the classroom setting. Communicative Language Teaching theory holds that negotiating meaning is a key element in learning a foreign language. Yet, the ability to negotiate meaning is dependent upon one’s ability to use communicative strategies effectively, but what are communicative strategies?
According to Ellis (1985:164), communicative strategies are related to the cognitive component of procedural knowledge, “which comprises the various mental processes involved in internalizing and automatizing new L2 knowledge” (second language learning) and in using this knowledge in conjunction with other knowledge sources to communicate in the L2. “Communication strategies, then, are the result of an initial failure to implement a production plan. Language use, therefore, is characterized by both production and reception strategies, which operate when the learner utilizes available resources easily and subconsciously” (1985:165).
Also, they have been defined by other researchers as ‘strategies employed when people encounter a communication problem during conversation’ (Murphy, 200 3); ‘any sets of operations, steps, plans, routines used by the learner to facilitate the obtaining sotrage, retrieval, and use of information’ (Wenden & Rubin, 1987:19); ‘intentional behavior and thoughts used by learners during learning so as to better help them understand, learn, or remember new information’ (Richards & Platt,
1992:209); and ‘an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target
language’ (Faerch & Kasper, 1983:67) , among others.
Hence “all language learners use language learning strategies either consciously or unconsciously when processing new information and performing tasks in the language classroom. Since language classroom is like a problem-solving environment in which language learners are likely to face new input and difficult tasks given by their instructors, learners’ attempts to find the quickest or easiest way to do what is required that is, using language learning strategies is inescapable ” (Hismanoglu,
2000).
2.3.2. A typology of language learning strategies.
In order to get to the notion of strategies in discourse analys is, we must overview the typology of language learning strategies so as to get the one entitled ‘discourse strategies’. These strategies go into the details of how discourse analyses relate to the different areas (grammar, vocabulary, phonology) and to the pragmatic perspective of spoken and written language (the purpose of language interaction).
Research into language learning strategies began in the 1960s as important developments in cognitive psychology were taking place. The primary concern was on identifying what good language learners reported they did to learn a second or foreign language (Rubin & Wenden, 1987). Many attempts followed to classify strategies in successful learners (Wenden & Rubin, 1987; O’Malley et al., 1985; Oxford, 1990; Stern, 1992; Ellis, 1994; etc ) but still, there is no generally agreed typology to follow.
Yet, it was Selinker who coined the term ‘communication strategy’ in 1972 in his account of the processes responsible for interlanguage and Joan Rubin who, in 1975, classified the strategies of language learning into direct and indirect (the former contribute directly to learning whereas the latter contribute indirectly to the learning process). Then, according to Rubin, there are three types of strategies used by learners that contribute directly or indirectly to language learning: learning strategies, communication strategies and social strategies.
Of course, this classification is not the only one and others followed. Thus, O’Malley (1985)
divided learning strategies into three main categories: metacognitive, cognitive and socioaffective; Oxford (1990) distinguished two main classes, direct and indirect, which were subdivided into six groups: direct (memory, cognitive, compensation strategies) and indirect (metacognitive, affective and social strategies); Stern (1992) also introduced his own classification (management and planning, cognitive, communicative, interpersonal and affective strategies).
3. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS STRATEGIES.
In this section, then, we shall approach the analysis of discourse strategies by (1) defining discourse analysis strategies, analysing (2) discourse and strategies in terms of competences, by offering (3) a typology of strategies on discourse analysis and approaching (4) the analysis and articulation of discourse by offering (a) an analysis of linguistic features regarding (i) cohesion (formal links) in terms of grammatical, lexical, phonological and graphological devices; and (ii) an analysis of coherence (contextual links) concerning language functions, Grice’s cooperative principles and the notions of turn-taking and adjacency pairs, among others. In addition, we shall analyse the main (b) nonlinguistic devices as well as (c) paralinguistic ones.
3.1. On defining discourse analysis strategies.
As stated before, a mention to discourse analysis strategies in our educational curricula is to be found within the framework of the ‘communicative approach’ to language teaching. Following Olshtain and Celce-Murcia (2001), “it would be ill-advised to teach language via the communicative approach without relying heavily on discourse analysis. In fact discourse analysis should provide the main frame of reference for decision- making in language teaching and learning”. In this way, it creates suitable contexts for students and provides them with opportunities to process language within a variety of situations.
This natural interaction would be accompanied by a set of sociolinguistic features and the real or imaginary participants would represent real-life interaction. Then, age, social status, and other personal characteristics of the interactants cannot be ignored, and learners are expected to develop
“awareness of the linguistic choices which are related to such features” (Olshtain & Celce-Murcia,
2001). Therefore, these abilities seem to be quite transferable in the language classroom for students to use such strategies when analysing a text in the second language and examine how discourse analysis relates to the different areas with formal and nonformal links (cohesion and coherence).
So in next chapter, we shall examine how the structure of discourse is analysed by means of a set of strategies which comprise the various mental processes involved in internalizing and automatizing new L2 knowledge. So this analysis will be carried out in terms of competences as an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language.
3.2. Discourse and strategic competence.
During the past 25 years, communicative language teaching has been the dominant approach to the teaching of foreign and second languages. Much of this ascendancy is due to the sociolinguist Dell Hymes (1967, 1972) who in a series of articles developed the notion of communicative competence. Hymes was convinced that Chomsky’s notion of competence (1965), defined as a speaker-hearer’s underlying mental representation of grammatical rules , was far too narrow. Instead communicative competence takes us one step further than purely grammatical competence, into the area of pragmatics which deals with the use of language in everyday communicative situations. Communicative Competence is therefore concerned not only with what is grammatical but also what is appropriate in a given social situation.
The most important study on developing the notion of Communicative Competence from Dell Hymes work has been done by Canale and Swain (1980). There is also a useful discussion of this in Swain (1980) which is especially useful for those approaching communicative competence from a second language acquisition point of view. Here the notion of Communicative Competence is divided up into four subcomponents: grammatical, discourse, sociolinguistic, and strategic competence, which are glossed below.
1. Grammatical competence.
Grammatical competence subsumes all knowledge of lexical items and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar semantics and phonology (Canale and Swain
1980). It therefore refers to having control over the purely linguistic aspects of the
language code itself, regarding verbal and non-verbal codes. This corresponds to
Hymes’ grammatical aspect and includes knowledge of the lexicon, syntax, morphology, phonology and semantics. Thus, it involves rules of formulations and constraints for students to match sound and meaning; to form words and sentences using vocabulary; to use language through spelling and pronunciation; and to handle linguistic semantics.
2. Sociolinguistic competence.
Sociolinguistic competence refers to the knowledge which the learner has to acquire of the sociocultural rules of language. This type of knowledge requires an understanding of the social context in which language is used: the roles of the participants, the information they share, and the function of the interaction (Savignon 1983). Other relevant figures in this field, such as Canale and Swain (1980) defined this competence in terms of sociocultural rules of use, and rules of discourse. Regarding the rules of discourse, it is defined in terms of the mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and meanings (1980). When we deal with appropriateness of form, we refer to the extent to which a given meaning is represented in both verbal and non -verbal form that is proper in a given sociolinguistic context.
3. Discourse competence.
For our purposes, discourse analysis is primarily concerned with the ways in which individual sentences connect together to form a communicative message. One of its main figures, Widdowson (1978) proposed a distinction between the concepts of use and usage , where usage refers to the ma nifestation of the knowledge of a language system and use means the realization of the language system as meaningful communicative behavior. This competence addresses directly to the mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and meanings to achieve a unified spoken or written text in different genres (Canale and Swain 1980). By genre is meant the type of text to be unified, thus, a scientific paper, an argumentative essay, and oral and written narrative among others. For them, the unity of a text is achieved through cohesion in form and coherence in meaning.
4. Strategic competence.
Finally we come to the fourth area of Communicative Competence. In the words of Canale (1983), strategic competence is the verbal and nonverbal communication strategies that may be called into action to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to performance variables or due to insufficient competence.This is quite a complex area but in a simplified way we can describe it as the type of knowledge which we need to sustain communication with someone. This may be achieved by paraphrase, circumlocution, repetition, hesistation, avoidance, guessing as well as shifts in register and style. According to Canale and Swain (1980), strategic competence is useful in various circumstances as for instance, the early stages of second language learning where communicative competence can be present with just strategic and socio-linguistic competence.
3.3. A typology of strategies on discourse analysis.
Hence, we shall present how cognitive strategies (strategic competence) can provide a whole account of how to analyse a text (discourse competence) by means of verbal and nonverbal devices2 . It is relevant to point out that learners are expected “to develop awareness of the linguistic choices which are related to such features” (Olhstain & Celce-Murcia, 2001) because they need to gain experience in decision-making depending on the linguistic and pragmatic features of the given situation.
The analysis and articulation of discourse was virtually limited to relations within the sentence up to the third quarter of this century. It was thought that relations beyond the sentence involved a complex interplay of linguistics with other concerns such as rhethoric, aesthetics, and pragmatics. However, literary critics and social anthropologists began to shed light on this issue from the constructs evolved by de Saussure, the Prague School, and other linguists whose work extended and embraced stylistics and other aspects of textual studies.
We must emphasize the fact that, even today, there is no agreement on the set of strategies to use on discourse analysis. In fact, we shall present a typology of strategies proposed by four relevant
figures in the field: Halliday (1973, 1976), Leech (1987), Moody (1987) and Cook (1989) since
each of them examine different aspects of discourse analysis. So, we shall take the main contributions and establish a common description method based on the current educational guidelines established in B.O.E. (2002).
Halliday’s contributions (1973, 1976) emerge from the study of any situationally distinctive use of the language and the choices made by individuals and social groups, and also from the use of style in literary and nonliterary texts. He distinguishes between two types of texts (literary and nonliterary) and poses that there are few linguistic categories that will appear in the description of literary texts which may also be found in the analysis of other nonliterary texts.
The analysis of both texts showed no difference in treatment since the categories and methods were the same, although few literary texts depend for their impact on some norms of the language in which they are composed. So, Halliday established a strategy (common to both texts) based on the analysis of the seven standards of textuality, from which cohesion and coherence will be dealt with for our purposes.
Whereas cohesion examines “how utterances are linked structurally and facilitates interpretation of a text” by means of cohesion devices, such as pronouns, synonyms, ellipsis, conjunctions and parallel structures to relate individual utterances and to indicate how a group of utterances is to be understood as a text, coherence refers to the relationships among the different meanings in a text, where these meanings may be literal meanings, communicative functions, and attitudes.
Similarly Leech (1987) examines in depth the apparatus of linguistic description by means of a set of linguistic categories within literary and nonliterary texts. The writer’s choice of language is underlined as a significant feature of discourse analysis on the basis of four main linguistic categories: lexical, grammatical, figures of speech and cohesion and context (semantic categories are included in each of them).
So, lexical categories involve general vocabulary under different perspectives: simple vs. complex, formal vs. informal, dialect vs. register, polite vs. familiar, spoken vs.
written, specific vs. ordinary language; nouns in terms of abstract vs. concrete, proper
vs. collective nouns, among others; adjectives; verbs and adverbs. Secondly, under the heading of grammatical categories, he outlines sentence types, sentence structures (simple, complex, compound), phrase structures (noun, adjective, verb, etc), open vs. closed grammatical categories; thirdly, figures of speech, such as lexical schemes (anaphora, paralelism), phonological schemes (stress, rhythm, intonation) and tropes, such as metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche and so on. Finally, under the heading of cohesion and context, he reviews the ways sentences are connected and the elements of interaction (character, thought, direct vs. indirect speech, etc) respectively.
In a similar way, but with different terminology again, Moody (1987) establishes a difference between ordinary language (the language of prose) and rethoric language (the language of poetry). His strategy for text analysis is based on three main steps: comprehension, technique and judgement. First, comprehension deals with the understanding of various general features, such as situation (context), development (thoughts and reflections on the passage) and intention (the writer’s main intention or purpose when writing the passage ); secondly, technique deals with the understanding of the means by which the writer’s effect is conveyed: logical structure, choice of words, sounds of words, word order, rhythm and rhyme; finally, judgement deals with the final opinion the writer express on the particular passage.
Finally, Cook (1989) states that formal skills (pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar) as well as nonlinguistic (face, body) and paralinguistic devices (sounds, images, vocal quality) are not enough in discourse analysis. He argues that the field of pragmatics provides us with the rest of skills (time, world – social and physical- , language, and thought –knowledge and reasoning-) as a means of relating stretches of language to the physical, social, and psychological world in which they take place.
As we stated before, discourse then is the place where all these elements, formal and pragmatic, interact to give meaning and unity to a text. Hence, discourse analysis’ main aim is to search for these formal and pragmatic links which give cohesion (meaning) and coherence (sense and unity) to a text so as to present a meaningful stretch of language.
Hence, as we can see, these four representative figures comment on the strategies to follow on
discourse analysis in a similar way but with different terminology and classification. So, for the sake of clarity and economy, we shall follow the structure of Cook and Halliday’s method taking into account the other three figures’ contributions since they all help configurate our study.
3.4. The analysis and articulation of discourse.
In this section, then, we shall approach the analysis and articulation of discourse from the disciplines of syntax, pragmatics and namely semantics, together with a grammatical approach when necessary on morphological and phonological features. So we shall two of the seven standards of textuality: cohesion and coherence. We shall start by offering (1) an analysis of linguistic features regarding (a) cohesion (formal links) in terms of (i) grammatical, (ii) lexical, (iii) phonological and (iii) graphological devices; and (b) an analysis of coherence (contextual links) concerning language functions, Grice’s cooperative principles and the notions of turn-taking and adjacency pairs, among others. In addition, we shall analyse the main (2) nonlinguistic devices as well as (3) paralinguistic ones.
3.4.1. Linguistic devices.
Thus, when analysing discourse, we may find common features to all text types which will be reviewed under the linguistic parameters of cohesion and coherence (Halliday, 1976) or formal links and contextual links (following Cook, 1989). For present purposes, we will think about texts as a set of complex, organized systems that operate in concert with linguistic, nonlinguistic and paralinguistic devices when any particular act of communication is under revision for social behaviour.
3.4.1.1. Cohesion: formal links.
Semantically speaking, the term ‘cohesion’ concerns the ways in which the components of the surface text (the actual words we hear or see) are mutually connected within a sequence of
utterances (Beaugrande & Dress ler, 1988), that is, intra-text linking devices are connected to extra-
textual reference. The notion of ‘cohesion’ is expressed through the stratal organization of language which can be explained as a multiple coding system comprising three levels of coding common for all text types: the semantic one (meanings), the lexicogrammatical (morphological forms, grammar and vocabulary) and the phonological and orthographic one (expressions: sounding and writing).
Cohesion has been a most popular target for research, and it is well known its relation to the second of the textuality standards, coherence. Since cohesive markers are important for the understanding of dialogic texts, all speakers make extensive use of them, for example in order to enhance coherence, but also for reasons of economy (e.g. a sequence of greetings). Since cohesion is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary, we find two main types of cohesive devices considered as general categories of cohesion: grammatical cohesion (substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, reference) and lexical cohesion (reiteration, collocation) by means of grammatical categories such as adjectives, nouns, process verbs, and so on.
1. Grammatical cohesion.
Thus the concept of cohesion accounts for the essential semantic relations in a text: substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and reference. Note that these items make reference to the terms ‘anaphora and cataphora, connectors and deixis’, quite frequent in written and oral texts. It is relevant to mention first that anaphora, cataphora and deixis will be examined under the heading of reference, and connectors under the heading of conjunction.
The cohesive device of ‘substitution’ is very similar to that of ‘ellipsis’. These two cohesive relations are thought of as processes within the text: substitution as ‘the replacement of one item by another’ so as not to repeat similar vocabulary (i.e. Would you like a coffee? – No, thanks. I’ve just had one). This cohesive device can also function under morphological shape with synonyms (i.e. a drink, a hot drink, a beverage); and ellipsis as the omission of an item (i.e. Would you like a coffee? Yes, I would).
The reference type of grammatical cohesion is another well researched area within any type of text. It is defined by Halliday & Hasan (1976) as ‘the case where the information to be retrieved is the referential meaning, the identity of the particular thing or class of things that
is being referred to; and the cohesion lies in the continuity of reference, whereby the same
thing enters into the discourse a second time’. As we stated before, paragraph ideas are linked and interrelated although they are in different paragraphs, so theme and rheme (anaphora and cataphora) are always present (i.e. Have you seen my new mobile? –I think so. Is it the one you were using yesterday?).
Conjunction is a relevant relationship since connectors establish the necessary links between ideas and thoughts within the text (coordination: and, but, although, however, in addition). They indicate how the subsequent sentence or clause should be linked to the preceding or the following sentence or parts of sentence. They play an essential role in oral texts since they reflect cohesion within the discourse and show a logical development of the discussion by establishing different relationships between the presented ideas: summative (i.e. In addition, moreover), restrictive (i.e. specially, in particular), causal (i.e. because, because of, due to), explanatory (i.e. I see; yes, I know), previous reference (anaphora: As I said before) and conclusive (i.e. To end up this conversation…).
Other grammatical devices involve the use of specific syntactic structures, such as (1) interrogative and exclamative sentence structures; (2) finite clauses in past and present tense as a way of switching reference (i.e. Was he sleeping? – Yes, he always does); (3) subordination (subordinate clauses, relative clauses); (4) coordination (copulative, adversative) and finally, (5) specific formulae for both oral (a dialogue between shop assistants and customers) and written texts (letters, wrting a prescription, report or newspaper article ).
2. Lexical cohesion.
From a lexical approach, we cannot determine specific or technical vocabulary within common types of texts since they are spontaneous interactions and have open structures (except specific cases) although we do with literary texts. Hence common texts are namely characterized by the use of a wide range of any grammatical category (i.e. noun, adjective, verb, adverb, connectors,
) which establish a semantic link and a unity between paragraphs .
3. Graphological devices.
With respect to graphological resources, we are mainly dealing with format and therefore, ‘the way you place the type upon the page’ (the visual outcome the receiver gets) as we make reference to orthography and punctuation, as well as with headings, foot notes, tables of contents and indexes. The arrangement of type upon the page is the choice of typeface, the placement of headings, the method of citing references or the arrangement of information into sections for longer documents (reports), among others.
Some common differences are the hierarchy of headings and the listing of references in the text. One reason that a format specifies a hierarchy for headings is so that readers can understand what information in the document is primary and what information is subordinate. The actual ways to represent these hierarchies vary considerably. Common ways are different type sizes for the headings, different amounts of white space surrounding the headings, different typestyles for the headings, and numbering schemes for different order headings. In still other cases, such as the option of word processors, the formats call for combinations of these variables.
Given the wide variety of format issues and the even wider variety of options for those issues, these format guidelines cannot possibly present every format option that we may encounter in any text, either literary or nonliterary . What is important is not that we learn every format which exists, but that you realize a specified formats exist and that we may choose the appropriate professional format we need for our situation.
On the other hand, orthography is related to a correct spelling, and in relation to this term, Byrne (1979) states that the mastery of the writing system includes the ability to spell. This device covers different word categories, but mainly, rules of suffixation, prefixation, and addition of verbal markers as gerunds, past tenses or third person singular in present tenses. The importance of correct spelling is highlighted when Byrne says that most of us are obliged to consult a dictionary from time to time so as not to be indifferent to misspelling. Therefore, students a re encouraged to acquire the habit of consulting a dictionary in order to ensure an adequate mastery of spelling .
Finally, according to Quirk et al (1972) punctuation serves two main functions.
Firstly, the separation of successive units (such as sentences by periods, or items in a list by commas), and secondly, the specification of language function (as when an apostrophe indicates that an inflection is genitive). Moreover, punctuation is concerned with purely visual devices , such as capital letters, full stops, commas, inverted commas, semicolons, hyphens, brackets and the use of interrogative and exclamative marks. It is worth noting that punctuation has never been standardised to the same extent as spelling, and as a result, learners tend to overlook the relevance of punctuation when producing a text.
4. Phonological devices.
Finally, we shall also mention the role of phonology. Note that in oral interactions we face another type of cohesive features since written devices are substituted by, first, a falling intonation in statements so as to highlight the discourse referential function and, second, the absence of exclamative and persuasive intonation. In fact, as people speak, nonlinguistic devices such as nodding, gestures, facial expressions or the way of looking become essential in the communicative exchange since the physical outcome is very important to establish communication.
Note that in oral texts we face another type of cohesive features since written devices are substituted by general conventions of pauses and stress to mark each participant intervention. We may establish a classification of specific features in oral texts:
False starts, which are unnecessary repetitions of words at the beginning of the sentence whose result is an ungrammatic al sequence of words (i.e. ‘At four o’clock?’, ‘Er’, ‘I…’,
‘It’s…’, ‘And then…’, ‘We’ve got to…’, etc). They are typical signals of active listening on
the part of the listener which express a number of emotional items including agreement, disagreement, acceptance, etc. (i.e. ‘Er’, ‘I…’, ‘It’s…’, ‘Hmm’, ‘Uhum’, ‘Aha’, ‘Ah’, ‘Uh’,
‘No!’, ‘No way!’, ‘Really?’, etc).
Syntactic anomalies . We speakers often fail to keep control of the syntax of what we are saying and produce anomalous constructions. This specific constructions are orally accepted but regarded as awkward and unacceptable in a written composition since they are grammatically incorrect (i.e. We’ve bitten him up vs. We’ve bit ‘m up).
Prosody expressions to complete sentences when we do not know what to say and enable us
to dispense with words that would be necessary for clarity in a written version of the same text (i.e. Well, …/Actually, …/then…).
Pauses which are used to introduce significant information units, as the end of what may be a prosodic paragraph. These pauses are marked by giving a special long curve of intonation nucleus (usually falling intonation). A pause may be also introduced immediately before a lexical item which the speaker may feel be especially important, or unfamiliar, which he/she wishes to be heard clearly (i.e. a specific word: ‘He said I was…quite informal’). Often, pauses are signs of hesitation.
3.4.1.2. Coherence: contextual links.
Coherence is a purely semantic property of discourse which gives sense and unity to any text, while cohesion is mainly concerned with morpho-syntactic devices in discourse. A coherent text is a semantically connected, integrated whole, expressing relations of closeness, time or location between its concepts and sentences. A condition on this continuity of sense is that the connected concepts are also related in the real world and that the speakers identify these relations.
In a coherent text, there are direct and indirect semantic referential links between lexical items in and between sentences, which the reader must interpret. A text must be coherent enough for the interlocutor to be able to interpret. It seems probable that this coherence can be achieved either through cohesion, for instance, markers and clues in the speakers’ text, or through the employment of the user-centred textuality standards of intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality and intertextuality.
These markers are defined as all the devices which are needed in writing in order to prod uce a text in which the sentences are coherently organised so as to fulfil the writer’s communicative purpose (to establish a conversational interaction in a successful way). Hence we may establish two main coherent devices in oral interaction: the interlocutors’ cooperative principles under the form of four conversational maxims, and the notions of turn-taking and adjacency pairs in conversational analysis.
1. Grice’s cooperative principles.
The English language philosopher H. Paul Grice (1969) was not the first to recognize that non- literal meanings posed a problem for theories of language use, but he was among the first to explain the processes that allow speakers to convey, and addressees to identify, communicative intentions that are expressed non-literally, as for him, meaning is seen as a kind of intending , and the hearer’s or reader’s recognition that the speaker or writer means something by x is part of the meaning of x .
His insight that the communicative use of language rests on a set of implicit understandings among language users has had an important influence in both linguistics and social psychology. In a set of influential papers, Grice (1957, 1969, 1975) argued that conversation is an intrinsically cooperative endeavor . To communicate participants will implicitly adhere to a set of conventions, collectively termed the Cooperative Principle or Conversational Maxims, by making their messages conform to four general rules or maxims where speakers shape their utterances to be understood by hearers. Thus, the maxims are quality, quantity, relation and manner: first, quality envisages messages to be truthful; quantity , by means of which messages should be as informative as is required, but not more informative; relation , for messages to be relevant; and manner, where messages should be clear, brief and orderly.
2. Conversational Analysis and Turn-Taking.
A main feature of conversations is that they tend to follow the convention of turn taking. Simply, this is where one person waits for the other to finish his/her utterance before contributing their own. This is as much a utilitarian convention as mere manners
– a conversation, given the aforementioned definition, would logically cease to take place if the agents involved insisted on speaking even when it was plain that the other was trying to contribute.
It is, additionally, comforting to know that the other person respects your opinions enough not to continually interrupt you. The best example of this occurs in the Houses of Parliament – a supposed debating chamber which is often anything but, due to the failure of the members to observe the turn-taking code. Note, however, that a person rarely explicitly states that they have finished their utterance and are now awaiting yours. Intriguing exceptions to this are in two-way radios, where many social and
psychological cues are lacking, and thus it is more difficult for speakers to follow turn-
taking.
The potential for one to reply can be missed, deliberately or not, so that the first person may contribute once more. Failure to realise this can result in an awkward pause or a cacophony of competing voices in a large crowd.
3. Conversational Analysis and Adjacency Pairs.
Another fundamental feature of conversation is the idea of adjacency pairs . Posited by Goffman (1976), an example would be found in a question -answer session. Both conversing parties are aware that a response is required to a question; moreover, a particular response to a given question. I might invite a friend into my house and ask: “Would you like a biscuit?” To which the adjacency pair response is expected to be either “Yes” or “No”. My friend may be allergic to chocolate, however, and place an insertion sequence into the response: “Do you have any ginger snaps?” the reply to which would cause him to modify his answer accordingly.
In the above consideration of turn-taking, such observations may be used in our social interactions when the second agent did not take their opportunity to respond to the first, and the implication is that they have nothing to say about the topic. But perhaps the transition relevance place was one in which the second agent was in fact selected, but failed to respond, or responded in an inappropriate manner.
This infinity of responses is what makes language so entertain ing, and in the above cases the speakers might make inferences about the reasons for incorrect responses. These may be not to have responded because he did not understand the question, or not to agree with the interlocutor. As Goffman notes, a silence often reveals an unwillingness to answer. Dispreferred responses tend to be preceded by a pause, and feature a declination component which is the non-acceptance of the first part of the adjacency pair. Not responding at all to the above question is one such – and has been dubbed an attributable silence, thus, a silence which in fact communicates certain information about the non-speaker.
It has been noted that various physical cues, such as gestures or expressions, are in play during orthodox face-to-face exchanges, and these are obviously lacking in a telephone
conversation. Since humans are so adept at speaking over the phone, it is easy to
conclude that the cues are not as important as once imagined – we manage without them so well, after all. However, this argument does not take into account the cues one picks up from the voice – it is quite easy to detect if somebody is confident, or nervous on the phone, from the words they use, the pauses, the tone and pronunciations of the words. In short, we may be able to substitute these auditory cues for more conventional physical cues, and then empathise with the other person. This way, we could be visualising, or at least imagining with a fair degree of accuracy, how the person is feeling, and gaining cues that way.
3.4.2. Nonlinguistic devices.
As people speak, people often gesture, nod their heads, change their postures and facial expressions, and redirect the focus of their gaze. Although these behaviors are not linguistic by a strict definition of that term, their close coordination with the speech they accompany suggests that they are relevant to an account of language use, and also, can occur apart from the context of speech, spontaneous or voluntarily.
Conversational speech is often accompanied by gesture , and the relation of these hand movements to the speech are usually regarded as communicative devices whose function is to amplify or underscore information conveyed in the accompanying speech. According to one of the icons of American linguists, Edward Sapir, people respond to gesture with extreme alertness, in accordance with an elaborate and secret code that is written nowhere, known to none, and understood by all (Sapir, 1921).
Gestures are then, to be classified in different types, such as emblems or symbolic gestures as essentially hand signs with well established meanings (thumbs -up and V for victory, pointing, denial, and refusing). In contrast, we may find simple and repetitive rhythmic hand movements coordinated with sentence prosody, called batons, as using head and shoulders. Also, unplanned gestures that accompany spontaneour speech, called gesticulations, representational gestures, or lexical movements, related to semantic content of speech in order to describe things like size, strength or speed.
Concerning facial expression , it deals with an automatic response to an internal state although they
can be controlled voluntarily to a considerable extent, and are used in social situations to convey a variety of kinds of information (smiling and happiness). Changes in addressees’ facial expressions allows the addressee to express understanding concern, agreement, or confirmation where expressions such as smiles and head nods as considered as back-channels.
In relation to gaze direction, a variety of kinds of significance has been attributed to both the amount of time participants spend looking at each other, and to the points in the speech stream at which those glances occur, such as staring, watching, peering or looking among others. As proximity, body-orientation or touching, gazing may express the communicators’ social distance, by means of looking up to or looking down to.
3.4.3. Paralinguistic devices.
The primary medium by which language is expressed, speech, also contains a good deal of information that can be considered nonverbal. These non-verbal communicative uses of the vocal tract are possible by means of paralanguage, such as whistling or musical effects. Thus, a speaker’s voice transmits individuating information concerning his or her age, gender, region of origin, social class, and so on. In addition to this relatively static information, transient changes in vocal quality provide information about changes in the speaker’s internal state, such as hesitation or interjections. Changes in a speaker’s affective states usually are accompanied by changes in the acoustic properties of his or her voice (Krauss and Chiu 1993), and listeners seem capable of interpreting these changes, even when the quality of the speech is badly degraded, or the al nguage is one the listener does not understand.
When we refer to non-verbal or paralinguistic communication, visual and tactile modes are also concerned. They may be used for a variety of linguistic purposes such as the use of sign languages. For instanc e, the receiver may get the message by sound (as in speech and birdsong), by sight (as in written language, reading, morse or traffic signs) or by touch (as in the Braille alphabet of the blind or secret codes).
4. EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING.
4.1. The Communicative Approach: a basis for discourse analysis.
Discourse analysis proves effective in communicative language teachinng at both the theoretical and practical levels by providing language teaching and other teaching professionals with proper grounding in discourse analysis. In fact, the Communicative Approach or simply Communicative Language Teaching was the key to consider language as social behaviour, seeing the primary goal of language teaching as the development of the learner’s communicative competence. Hence learners were considered to need both rules of use to produce language appropriate to particular situations, and strategies for effective communication.
Scholars such as Hymes (1972), Halliday (1970), Canale and Swain (1980) or Chomsky (1957) levelled their contributions and criticisms at structural linguistic theories claiming for more communicative approaches on language teaching, where interactive processes of communication received priority. Upon this basis, the introduction of cultural studies is an important aspect of communicative competence as communicating with people from other cultures involves not only linguistic appropriateness but also pragmatic appropriateness in the use of verbal and non-verbal behavior.
The verbal part of communicative competence, and therefore, the analysis of discourse, comprises all the so-called four skills: listening, reading, speaking and writing. It is important to highlight that language is both productive and receptive. Hymes stated the four competences at work regarding the elements and rules of oral and written discourse are as follows: linguistic competence, pragmatic competence, discourse competence, strategic competence, and fluency (Hedge 2000).
First, the linguistic competence, as it deals with linguistic and non- linguistic devices in the oral and written interaction involving all knowledge of lexical items and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar semantics and phonology (Canale and Swain, 1980).
Secondly, the pragmatic competence as it also deals with the knowledge the learner has to acquire the sociocultural rules of language. Regarding the rules of discourse, it is defined in terms of the mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and meanings (Canale and Swain 1980). When we deal with appropriateness of form, we refer to the extent to which a given meaning is represented in both verbal and non-verbal form that is proper in a given sociolinguistic context. This competence
enables a speaker to be contextually appropriate or in Hymes’s words (1972), to know when to
speak, when not, what to talk about with whom, when, where and in what manner.
Thirdly, the rules of use and usage , proposed by Widdowson (1978) have to do with the discourse competence . Here, usage refers to the manifestation of the knowledge of a language system and use means the realization of the language system as meaningful communicative behavior. Discourse analysis is primarily concerned with the ways in which individual sentences connect toge ther to form a communicative message. This competence addresses directly to the mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and meanings to achieve a unified spoken or written text in different genres (Canale and Swain 1980) by means of cohesion in form and coherence in meaning.
Finally, we come to the fourth competence at work, the strategic competence. (Canale 1983) where verbal and nonverbal communication strategies may be called into action to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to performance variables or due to insufficient competence. This may be achieved by paraphrase, circumlocution, repetition, hesistation, avoidance, guessing as well as shifts in register and style. Hedge (2000) points out that strategic competence consists of using communication strategies which are used by learners to compensate for their limited linguistic competence in expressing what they want to say.
4.2. New directions in discourse analysis.
From a practical perspective in education, providing experiences for contact with language in context proved difficult for foreign language teachers as they were forced to rely on textbooks and classroom materials in teaching language. However, nowadays new technologies may provide a new direction to language teaching as they set more appropriate context for students to experience the target culture. Present-day approaches deal with a communicative competence model in which first, there is an emphasis on significance over form regarding how to deal with discourse types, and secondly, motivation and involvement are enhanced by means of new technologies.
Regarding writing skills, there is a need to create classrooms conditions which match those in real life and foster acquisition, encouring reading and writing (letters, advert isements, filling forms, official papers). The success partly lies in the way the language becomes real to the users, feeling themselves really in the language. Some of this motivational force is brought about by intervening
in authentic communicative events. Otherwise, we have to recreate as much as possible the whole
cultural environment in the classroom for us to make the articulation of discourse fluent and effective.
This is to be achieved within the framework of the European Union educational guidelin es through the European Council (1998) and, in particular, the Spanish Educational System which establish a common reference framework for the teaching of foreign languages where students are intended to carry out several communication tasks with specific communicative goals within specific contexts. Thus, foreign language activities are provided within the framework of social interaction, personal, professional or educational fields.
Writing and oral skills in discourse articulation are mentioned as one of the aims of our current educational system (B.O.E. 2002). It is stated that students will make use of this competence in a natural and systematic way in order to achieve the effectiveness of communication through the different communication skills, thus, productive (oral and written communication ), receptive (oral and written comprehension within verbal and non- verbal codes), and interactional role of a foreign language as a multilingual and multicultural identity.
Current research on Applied Linguistics shows an interest on writing skills, such as on the pragmatics of writing, narrative fiction and frequency on cohesion devices in English texts, among others. We may also find research on intercultural communication where routines and formulaic speech are under revision of contrastive analysis between English and Spanish. However, the emphasis is nowadays on the use of multimedia and computers as an important means to promote a foreign language in context.
5. CONCLUSION.
The role of writing and oral skills in our present society is emphasized by the increasing necessity of learning a foreign language as we are now members of the European Union, and as such, we need to communicate with other countries at oral and written levels. Written patterns are given an important role when language learners face the monumental task of acquiring not only new vocabulary, syntactic patterns, and phonology, but also discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, strategic competence, and interactional competence.
Students need opportunities to investigate the systematicity of language at all linguistic levels,
especially at the highest level of written and oral discourse by applying different cognitive strategies for their analysis. Without knowledge and experience within the discourse and sociocultural patterns of the target language, second language learners are likely to rely on the strategies and expectations acquired as part of their first language development, which may be inappropriate for the second language setting and may lead to communication difficulties and misunderstandings.
One problem for second language learners is not to acquire a sociocultural knowledge on the foreign language they are learning, and therefore, have a limited experience with a variety of interactive practices in the target language, such as reading a complaint sheet, writing a letter to a department store, or writing a letter to an English person with the appropriate written patterns. Therefore, one of the goals of second language teaching is to expose learners to different discourse patterns in different texts and interactions. One way that teachers can include the study of discourse
in the second language classroom is to allow the students themselves to study language, that is, to
make them discourse analysts (Olshtain & Celce-Murcia, 2001) by learning in context.
By exploring natural language use in authentic environments, learners gain a greater appreciation and understanding of the discourse patterns associated with a given genre or speech event as well as the sociolinguistic factors that contribute to linguistic variation across settings and contexts. For example, students can study speech acts by searching information on Internet about a job application, address patterns, opening and closings of museums, or other aspects of speech events.
To sum up, we may say that language is where culture impinges on form and where second language speakers find their confidence threatened through the diversity of registers, genres and styles that make up the first language speaker’s day to day interaction. Language represents the deepest manifestation of a culture, and people’s values systems, including those taken over from the group of which they are part, play a substantial role in the way they use not only their first language but also subsequently acquired ones.
The assumptions of discourse analysis strategies we have reviewed in this study are then important not only for understanding written and oral discourse patterns and the conditions of their production, but also for a critical assessment of our own cultural situation.
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W. 1988. Introduction to Text Linguistics . London: Longman.
B.O.E. 2002. Consejería de Educación y Cultura. Decreto N.º 112/2002, de 13 de septiembre. Currículo de la Educación
Secundaria Obligatoria en la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia.
B.O.E. 2002. Consejería de Educación y Cultura. Decreto N.º 113/2002, de 13 de septiembre. Currículo de Bachillerato en la Comunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia.
Brown, G. and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis . Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G.and G. Yule. 1983. Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M., and M. Swain, 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1 (1).
Canale, M. 1983. From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy, in J. Richards and R. Schmidt (eds.). Language and Communication . London, Longman.Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics, pp. 269-93. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Council of Europe (1998) Modern Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. A Common European Framework of reference.
Cook, Guy. 1989. Discourse. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition . Oxford University Press.
Faerch, Claus and G. Kasper.1983. Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman. Halliday, M.A.K. 1975. Explorations in the Functions of Language . London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M.A. K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English . Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Spoken and Written Language. Victoria: Deakin University. Hedge, T. 2000. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom (OUP).
Hismanoglu, M. 2000. Language Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Hacettepe University, Turkey.
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Hymes, D. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Leech, G and M. Short. 1987. Style in Fiction. Longman, New York. Moody, H. 1987. Literary Appreciation. Longman, Singapore.
Murphy, R. 2003. On Teaching Communicative Strategies in the Classroom. Paper for the Association for Language
Teaching. Matsuyama JALT Chapter.
Olshtain, E. and M. Celce-Murcia. 2001. Discourse and Context in Language Teaching. A Guide for Language Teachers. CUP: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. And John Platt. 1992. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics . Essex: Longman. Rivers, W. 1981. Teaching Foreign-Language Skills. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Dijk, T. 1984. Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman.
van Dijk, T. 1981. Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. Mouton publishers.
Wenden, A. and J. Rubin.1987. Learner Strategies in Language Learning . New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.