DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ANALYSIS FOR LANGUAGE TEACHERS BY MICHAEL MCCARTHY CPAHTER 1 WHAT IS DISCOURSE ANALYSIS BY shamimnazish@homai!"#om 1. The opening paragraphs paragraphs of the book have been dedicated dedicated to the the hi hist stor oric ical al evol evolut utio ion n of the the su subj bjec ectt of Disc Discou ours rse e analysis. Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the contexts in which it is used. It grew out of work in dierent disciplines disciplines in the 19!s and early 19"!s. Discourse analysts study language in use# written texts of all kinds$ and spoken
$%!!i& Ha''is Ha''is publ data. $%!!i& publiished hed a paper per with the the titl title e %Disco %Discours urse e analy analysis sis%% (Ha''is 1)*+," In the 19 9!s !s$$ D%!!
H-m%s provid provided ed a sociolog sociological ical perspective perspective &e.g. H-m%s 1)./'. In hi his s hi hist stor oric ical al overv vervie iew$ w$ (c)a (c)art rthy hy tell tells s how how disc di scou ours rse e anal analys ysis is deve develo lope ped d as an acad acade* e*ic ic su subj bjec ectt over the past half a century. +e gives details as to how the ,*erican$ -ritish and other writers contributed to the develop*ent develop*ent of this eld of acade*ics. /. (c)a (c)art rthy hy su sugge ggest sts s that that for* for* and and func functi tion on have have to be separated to understand what is happening in discourse. 0hen we say that a particular bit of speech or writing is a reues euestt or an instru instructi ction on or an exe* exe*pli plica catio tion n we are are
concentrating on what that piece of language is doing$ or how the listener is supposed to react. 2or this reason$ such entities are often also called speech acts. 3ach of the stretches of language that are carrying the force of reuesting$ instructing$ and so on is seen as perfor*ing a particular act. 0e are all fa*iliar with course books that say things like# %+ere are so*e uestions which can help people to re*e*ber experiences which they had al*ost forgotten# 0hen people speak or write$ they do not just utte utterr a st stri ring ng of ling lingui uist stic ic for for*s$ *s$ with withou outt begi beginn nnin ing$ g$ *iddle or end. Discourse analysis is thus funda*entally concerned with the relationship between language and the contexts of its use. 4. (c)arthy discusses procedural
and
text
analysis
appr pproache ches and *ain pro probl ble* e* with ith *akin ing g a neat anal analys ysis is of extra xtract ct is that that it is clea clearl rly y the the %*id %*iddl dle% e% of so*ething. The dialogue is structured in the sense that it can
be
coherently
interpreted
and
see*s
to
be
progressing so*ewhere$ but we are in the *iddle of a structure rather than witnessing the co*plete unfolding of the whole. It is in this respect$ the interest in whole disc di sco ours urse
struc tructu turres$
tha that
dis di scou course rse
anal analys ysis is
adds dds
so*ething extra to the traditional concern with functional speech acts.
5. In addition to all our verbal encounters we daily consu*e hundreds of written and printed words# newspaper articles$ letters$ stories$ recipes$ instructions$ notices$ billboards$ lea6ets pushed through the door$ and so on. 0e usually expect the* to be coherent$ *eaningful co**unications in which the words and sentences are linked to one another in a fashion that corresponds to conventional for*ulae$ just as we do with speech7 therefore discourse analysts are eually interested in the organi8ation of written interaction. . 0ith written texts$ so*e of the proble*s associated with spoken transcripts are absent. (c)arthy says that there is no need to contend with people. The writer has usually had ti*e to think about what to say and how to say it$ and the sentences are usually well. -ut the overall uestions re*ain the sa*e# what nor*s or rules do people adhere to when creating written texts: ,re texts structured according to recurring principles i.e. is there a hierarchy of units co*parable to acts$ *oves and exchanges$ and are there conventional ways of opening and closing texts: ,s with spoken discourse$ if we do nd such regularities$ and if they can be shown as ele*ents that have dierent reali8ations in dierent languages$ or that they *ay present proble*s for learners in other
ways$ then the insights of written discourse analysis *ight be applicable to language teaching.
CPAHTER + DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 0 GRAMMAR 1. ;ra**ar has traditionally been referred to$ in teaching$ as individual ite*s and their relation with each other depending of the for* of other related
poken and
written
discourses display
gra**atical
cohesions between individual clauses and utterances. These gra**atical links are #!assi%2 3- M#Ca'h-
4n2%'
h'%%
3'oa2 -5%s
#o6'%7%'%n#%8
%!!i5sis
s43o'2inaion an2 #on94n#ion . >poken and written discourses
display
gra**atical
cohesions
between
individual clauses and utterances. 4. 0hat we decide to bring to the front of the clause &by whatever *eans' is a signal of what is to be understood as the fra*ework within which what we want to say is to be understood. The rest of the clause can then be seen as trans*itting %what we want to say within this fra*ework%. Ite*s brought to front=place in this way we shall call the the*es &or topics' of their clauses. 5. , great deal of attention has recently been paid to the
'%!aionshi5
3%:%%n
%ns%6as5%#
#hoi#%s
and
overall discourse constraints. -y exa*ining natural data$ discourse correlations
analysts
are
between
able
to
discourse
observe types
regular
and
the
predo*inance of certain tense and aspect choices in the clause. 3ually$ the e*phasis
discourse analysis on
interactive features of discourse such as speaker < writer perspective
and
standpoint$
and
the
focusing
or
foregrounding of certain ele*ents of the *essage$ has led to reinterpretations of conventional state*ents about tense and aspect rules. . This chapter has taken a selection of gra**atical concepts and has atte*pted to show how discourse analysis has contributed to our understanding of the
relationship between local choices within the clause and sentence and the organi8ation of the discourse as a whole. The traditional approach to gra**ar see*s to have taken new turns with (c)arthy. +e believes that language teachers need not to take gra**ar as the individual ite*s$ their relationship with other surrounding ite*s$ their interdependency and rules governing the*. ?ather gra**ar has to be taken as a binding force of the entire discourse as a single whole. It works as an adhesive for the entire body beginning$ *iddle and an end.
of discourse with a
CPAHTER ; DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND
develop*ent$
which
*ay
or
*ay
not
be
exploited. The %conversation% class where topics are pre= set
*ay
be
a
li*itation
to
this
natural
kind
of
develop*ent7 a safer course of action *ight be to see pre=set topics *erely as %starters% and not to worry if the discourse develops its own *o*entu* and goes o in unpredictable directions. 4. 3ncouraging recognition of the co**unicative value of these lexical relations can start at uite an early stage in language learning$ as soon as the necessary vocabulary is encountered. >i*ple cue and response drills for pair=
work can train the learner in i**ediately associating synony*s and antony*s$ or a superordinate with its hypony*s$ and vice versa. 5. , so*ewhat dierent type of lexical relation in discourse is when a writer or speaker rearranges the conventional and well=established lexical relations and asks us to adjust our usual conceptuali8ations of how words relate to one another for the particular purposes of the text in uestion. (c)arthy borrows a ter* insania! '%!aions fro* @. 3llis &19' to describe Discourse=specic lexical relations. They are found freuently in spoken and written texts$ and are probably a universal feature in all languages. . , distinction is often *ade between gra**ar words and lexical words in language. This distinction also appears so*eti*es as function words versus content words. The distinction is a useful one# it enables analysts to separate those words which belong to closed syste*s in the language and which carry gra**atical *eaning$ fro* those that belong to open syste*s and which belong to the *ajor word classes of noun$ verb$ adjective and adverb. . The discourse=organi8ing words have been illustrated in their role of representing seg*ents of text$ parceling up phrases and whole sentences. In section 4. notes words
that often have a broader textual function too$ and that is to signal to the reader what larger textual patterns are being realised. This pheno*enon is further discussed. 0e observe an illustration of a proble*=solution pattern. Discourse organi8ers often contribute to our awareness that a proble* solution pattern is being reali8ed. =" (c)arthy says that there is specic vocabulary that always surrounds a specic text. )ertain words *ean so*ething in a nor*al language use but the sa*e words used in a dierent context *ean co*pletely dierently. (c)arthy is generally right in saying so but @argon study only helps is nding out type of text written. 0hat help further it provides to the discourse analysts is not described. Discourse analysis only atte*pts to analyse the *eaning as a whole and nding the type or eld of text is not very helpful in this regard as the context is generally always clear to the discourse analysts. Ane contribution that the study of vocabulary in naturally occurring discourses has *ade is to point up the all= pervasiveness language.
of
*odality
in
spoken
and
written
CPAHTER / DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND PHONOLOGY 1" Bnder the heading of phonology$ what has traditionally been thought of as %pronunciation%$ but (c)arthy devotes *ost of attention to intonation. This is partly because the *ost exciting develop*ents in the analysis of discourse have been in intonation studies rather than at the seg*ental level. ,ccording to (c)arthy intonation also contributes to the *aking of the *eaning in language < conversation. ?ather in the spoken discourse$ intonation is one of the *ost i*portant aspects that the analysts need to pay attention to$ in order to nd out what the discourse suggests. /. Traditional pronunciation teaching has found its strength in the ability of linguists to seg*ent the sounds of language into discrete ite*s called phone*es which$ when
used
in
the
construction
of
words$
produce
*eaningful contrasts with other words. The confusion faced by the foreign speakers of a language because of the pheno*enon of assi*ilations$ and of elisions is also covered under the phonology. In the contextual analysis of a language these two factors are also very i*portant as the *aking of *eaning is also aected by the*.
4. ,part fro* pronunciation
Thats
what
exactly
is
being
discussed
by
(c)arthy indirectly. 0hen we use the words in context we often fail either to understand or to co**unicate because we do not follow the nor*al native=speaker= patterns of pro*inence and word stress. 5. In addition to the word stress and
pro*inence
intonational units also contribute to the for*ation of contextual *eanings. It is the speaker who decides how the infor*ation is to be distributed in tone groups and where the tonic is placed$ and the decisions rest on an assess*ent of what needs to be highlighted for the listener. 0hile saying a sentence so*e parts are spoken with dierent intonational stress to give pro*inence to the entire part instead of only a word part. (ccarthy later highlights$ with the help of nu*erous exa*ples$ how this intricate co*plex of word stress
5. (c)arthy
pitch=level
gives his nal observation concerning how choices
operate
across
speaker
turns.
(atching or har*ony in pitch between speakers is a pheno*enon that (c)arthy discusses and he co*pares his view point with that of -rown$ )urrie E Fenworthy
(19G!> /4=5' and -ra8il. +e believes that pitch level is i*portant and pays role in turn taking a*ong speakers. Howering of the pitch around the end of an argu*ent *ay cause the loss of turn to a speaker. If one wants to retain the turn for further participation in a spoken discourse then the speaker has to keep his pitch to a level where he can continue speaking and others dont expect hi* to nish the turn.
CPAHTER * SPO?EN LANGUAGE 1. (c)arthy discusses in detail as to how gra**ar$ vocabulary
and
intonation
help
conduct
discourse
analysis and what the i*plication of the* in language teaching are. In this chapter he tries to have a closer look at various *anifestations of spoken discourse with a view to potential applications in language teaching. /. Cairs of utterances$ as he calls the*$ fa*ously known as adjacency pairs$ in talk are often *utually dependent7 a *ost obvious exa*ple is that a uestion predicts an answer$ and that an answer presupposes a uestion. It is possible
to
state
the
reuire*ents$
in
a
nor*al
conversational seuence$ for *any types of utterances$ in ter*s of what is expected as a response and what certain responses presuppose. ,djacency pairing occurs in the initiation and response and in the responding and follow= up *ove. ;" Ceople a% 4'ns when they are selected or no*inated by the current speaker$ or if no one is selected$ they *ay speak of their own accord. If neither of these conditions applies$ the person who is currently speaking *ay continue 0hile the current speaker is talking$ listeners are attentive to the syntactic co*pleteness or otherwise
of the speaker%s contribution$ and to clues in the pitch level that *ay indicate that a turn is co*ing to a close. There are specic linguistic devices for getting the turn when one is unable to enter the nor*al 6ow of turn= taking or when the setting
de*ands that
specic
conventions be followed. These vary greatly in level of for*ality and appropriacy to dierent situations. /" , distinction is often *ade by discourse analysts
3%:%%n
'ansa#iona!
an2
in%'a#iona!
a!"
Transactional talk is for getting business done in the world$ i.e. in order to produce so*e change in the situation that pertains. It could be to tell so*ebody so*ething they need to know$ to aect the purchase of so*ething$ to get so*eone to do so*ething$ or *any other world=changing things. Interactional talk$ on the other hand$ has as its pri*ary functions the lubrication of the social wheels$ establishing roles and relationships with another person prior to transactional talk$ conr*ing and consolidating relationships$ expressing solidarity$ and so on. . In addition to transactional and interactional talk$ al*ost any
piece
of
conversation
a*ong
people
include
occasions where people engage in the telling of stories$ anecdotes$ jokes and other kinds of narratives. In all
cultures it is thought to be a good talent to be able to tell a story or crack a good joke. ,s with other types of language events$ discourse analysts have sought to describe what all narratives have in co**on. . ,ctive and attentive listeners are constantly predicting what the *essage will be$ based on the evidence of their world knowledge and the type of discourse they are engaged in. Histening activities can test and encourage the develop*ent of predictive skills$ just as good reading activities often do.
,*ong
other
discourse
types
(c)arthy lists dierent events when speakers interact for a shorter duration like giving so*eone direction to reach a specic place or nd a place. ". In the end of the chapter (c)arthy *entions the role of gra**atical accuracy in unprepared speech. In contrast with the written discourse where clause and sentence structure are clearly dened$ the spoken discourse$ however$ presents a dierent picture$ and freuently contains for*s that would be considered ungra**atical in writing. >uch %*istakes% usually go uite unnoticed in natural talk$ and it is only when we look at transcripts that we realise that they are co**on. In fact$ what (c)arthy wanted to say *ust have been that these are actually no *istakes rather a feature of spoken discourse
where adherence to correct gra**atical rules is not thought to be i*portant.
CPAHTER . WRITTEN LANGUAGE 1" +aving discussed the spoken language$ (c)arthy co*es down to the written part of language. The educational environ*ents de*and the students to write subjective papers$ assays and other detailed co*positions like narrative$ descriptive or argu*entative$ and it is here that teachers nd the greatest challenges in devising interesting and authentic activities. Therefore$ his chapter considers how learners can be assisted in such writing skills by the insights discourse analysis has provided into text types and the relationships between texts and their contexts. +" -oth spoken and written discourses are dependent on their i**ediate contexts to a greater or lesser degree. The idea that writing is in so*e way %freestanding%$ whereas speech is *ore closely tied to its context$ has co*e under attack as an oversi*plication by discourse analysts &e.g. Tannen 19G/'. The transcript of a piece of natural
conversation
*ay
well
contain
references
i*possible to decode without particular knowledge or without visual infor*ation. ;" >entences and clauses for* the s*aller patterns of writing while the larger texts for* a holistic discourse. Hearners with overall poor co*petence are often trapped in the diculties of local encoding in spoken discourse. >o too can we observe such diculties aecting learners% written work. 2or the understanding and creation of a well understood text$ writers of a discourse need to be well conversant
with
the
background
and
i**ediate
surroundings of the context. Atherwise$ they *ay write at the cost of co*prehension of their readers. 5. The area of cross=cultural rhetoric studies has produced a vast literature of its own$ and a so*ewhat confusing one. An the one hand$ linguists clai* to have evidence of textual patterns in other languages not found in 3nglish writing7 on the other hand$ there is disagree*ent over whether
these
patterns
are
transferred
and
cause
interference when the learner writes in 3nglish. )ross cultural
interference$
however$
does
eect
the
perfor*ance of a speaker or a writer. Con#!4sion *" This book on discourse analysis has been written with a very dierent
rethinks as to how it can be useful in the language teaching perspective. Teachers will *ake up their own *inds as to whether their *ethods and techniues need reconsidering in the light of what discourse analysts say$ but$ as with all new trends in linguistic theory and description$ it is i*portant that discourse analysis be subjected not only to the scrutiny of applied linguists but also to the testing grounds of practical *aterials and classroo* activities. Ane drawback with this book is that it gives little in theory and tells a lot in the for* of activities. Though its the practical way of doing things but thats true in the 0estren context. In our >outh ,sian context it has to tell *ore and do less while its the other way round.
ERIC Identifer: ED456672 Publication Date: 2001-09-00 Author: Demo, Douglas A. Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages an Linguis!i"s #ashing!on DC.
Discourse Analysis or Language Teachers. ERIC Digest. Dis"ourse anal$sis is !he e%amina!ion o& language use '$ mem'ers o& a s(ee"h "ommuni!$. I! in)ol)es loo*ing a! 'o!h language &orm an language &un"!ion an in"lue !he s!u$ o& 'o!h s(o*en in!era"!ion an +ri!!en !e%!s. I! ien!ies linguis!i" &ea!ures !h "hara"!erie ieren! genres as +ell as so"ial an "ul!ural &a"!ors !ha! ai in our in!er(re!a!ion an uners!aning o& ieren! !e%!s an !$(es o& !al*. A is"ourse anal$si o& +ri!!en !e%!s migh! in"lue a s!u$ o& !o(i" e)elo(men! an "ohesion a"ross !he sen!en"es, +hile an anal$sis o& s(o*en language migh! &o"us on !hese as(e"!s (lus !urn!a*ing (ra"!i"es, o(ening an "losing se/uen"es o& so"ial en"oun!ers, or narra!i)e s!ru"!ure. he s!u$ o& is"ourse has e)elo(e in a )arie!$ o& is"i(lines-so"iolinguis!i"s, an!hro(olog$, so"iolog$, an so"ial (s$"holog$. hus is"ourse anal$sis !a*es ieren! !heore!i"al (ers(e"!i)es an anal$!i" a((roa"hes s(ee"h a"! !heor$, in!era"!ional so"iolinguis!i"s, e!hnogra(h$ o& "ommuni"a!ion, (ragma!i"s, "on)ersa!ion anal$sis, an )aria!ion anal$sis 3"hirin, 1994. Al!hough ea"h a((roa"h em(hasies ieren! as(e" o& language use, !he$ all )ie+ language as so"ial in!era"!ion. his iges! &o"uses on !he a((li"a!ion o& is"ourse anal$sis !o se"on language !ea"hing an learning. I! (ro)ies e%am(les o& ho+ !ea"hers "an im(ro)e !heir !ea"hing (ra"!i"es '$ in)es!iga!ing a"!ual language use 'o!h in an ou! o& !he "lassroom, an ho+ s!uen!s "an learn language !hrough e%(osure !o ieren! !$(es o& is"ourse. De!aile in!rou"!ions !o is"ourse anal$sis, +i!h s(e"ial a!!en!ion !o !he nees an e%(erien"es language !ea"hers, "an 'e &oun in Cel"e-ur"ia an lsh!ain 2000, a!"h 1992, "Car!h$ 1992, "Car!h$ an Car!er 1994, an Riggen'a"h 1999.
DISC!RSE A"AL#SIS A"D SEC"D LA"$!A$E TEAC%I"$ E)en +i!h !he mos! "ommuni"a!i)e a((roa"hes, !he se"on language "lassroom is limi!e in i!s a'ili!$ !o e)elo( learners8 "ommuni"a!i)e "om(e!en"e in !he !arge! language. hi is ue !o !he res!ri"!e num'er o& "on!a"! hours +i!h !he language minimal o((or!uni!i &or in!era"!ing +i!h na!i)e s(ea*ers an limi!e e%(osure !o !he )arie!$ o& &un"!ions, genres, s(ee"h e)en!s, an is"ourse !$(es !ha! o""ur ou!sie !he "lassroom. :i)en !he limi!e !ime a)aila'le &or s!uen!s !o (ra"!i"e !he !arge! language, !ea"hers shoul ma%imie o((or!uni!ies &or s!uen! (ar!i"i(a!ion. Classroom resear"h is one +a$ &or !ea"hers !o moni!or 'o!h !he /uan!i!$ an /uali!$ o& s!uen!s8 ou!(u!. ;$ &ollo+ing a &ou (ar! (ro"ess o& Re"or-
an !o see ho+ !hese (a!!erns (romo!e or hiner o((or!uni!ies &or learners !o (ra"!i"e ! !arge! language. his (ro"ess allo+s language !ea"hers !o s!u$ !heir o+n !ea"hing 'eha)ior--s(e"i"all$, !he &re/uen"$, is!ri'u!ion, an !$(es o& /ues!ions !he$ use an !heir ee"! on s!uen!s8 res(onses. =3!e( ne= our= Anal$e !he )ieo!a(e an !rans"ri(!. #h$ i $ou as* ea"h /ues!ion? #ha! !$(e /ues!ion +as i!--o(en e.g., =#ha! (oin!s o $ou !hin* !he au!hor +as ma*ing in !he "ha(!er $ou rea $es!era$?= or "lose e.g., =Di $ou li*e !he "ha(!er?=? #as !he /ues!ion ee"!i)e in !erms o& $our goals &or !ea"hing an learning? #ha! ee"! i $our /ues!ions ha)e on !he s!uen!s8 o((or!uni!ies !o (ra"!i"e !he !arge! language? o+ i !he s!uen!s res(on !o ieren! !$(es o& /ues!ions? #ere $ou sa!ise +i!h !heir res(onses? #hi"h /ues!ions eli"i!e !he mos! is"ussion &rom !he s!uen!s? Di !he s!uen!s as* an$ /ues!ions? >o"using on a"!ual "lassroom in!era"!ion, !ea"hers "an in)es!iga!e ho+ one as(e"! o& !heir !ea"hing s!$le ae"!s s!uen!s8 o((or!uni!ies &or s(ea*ing !he !arge! language. he$ "an !hen ma*e "hanges !ha! +ill allo+ s!uen!s mor (ra"!i"e +i!h a +ier )arie!$ o& is"ourse !$(es. ea"hers "an also use !his (ro"ess o& Re"or-or e%am(le, a ma( a"!i)i!$ is li*el$ !o eli"i! a series o& /ues!ions an ans+ers among (ar!i"i(an!s, +hereas (i"!ure narra!ion !as* re/uires a monologue e)elo(e aroun a narra!i)e &orma!. :i)e !ha! !ea"hers use "ommuni"a!i)e !as*s !o e)alua!e learners8 (ro"ien"$, a 'e!!er uners!aning o& !he in@uen"e o& s(e"i" a"!i)i!ies on learner is"ourse +ill li*el$ lea !ea"hers !o use a grea!er )arie!$ o& !as*s in orer !o gain a more "om(rehensi)e (i"!ure o& s!uen!s8 a'ili!ies. ;$ re"oring, !rans"ri'ing, an anal$ing s!uen!s8 is"ourse, !ea"hers "an gain insigh! in!o !he ee"! o& s(e"i" !as*s on s!uen!s8 language (rou"!i an, o)er !ime, on !heir language e)elo(men!. A is"ourse anal$sis o& "lassroom in!era"!ions "an also she ligh! on "ross-"ul!ural linguis!i" (a!!erns !ha! ma$ 'e leaing !o "ommuni"a!ion ii"ul!ies. >or e%am(le, some s(ea*ers ma$ engage in o)erla(, s(ea*ing +hile someone else is !a*ing a !urn-a!-!al*. > some linguis!i" grou(s, !his is"ourse 'eha)ior "an 'e in!er(re!e as a signal o& engagemen! an in)ol)emen! ho+e)er, o!her s(ea*ers ma$ )ie+ i! as an in!erru(!ion a
im(osi!ion on !heir s(ea*ing righ!s. ea"hers "an use !he Re"or-
DISC!RSE A"AL#SIS A"D SEC"D LA"$!A$E LEAR"I"$ Language learners &a"e !he monumen!al !as* o& a"/uiring no! onl$ ne+ )o"a'ular$, s$n!a"!i" (a!!erns, an (honolog$, 'u! also is"ourse "om(e!en"e, so"iolinguis!i" "om(e!en"e, s!ra!egi" "om(e!en"e, an in!era"!ional "om(e!en"e. he$ nee o((or!uni!ies !o in)es!iga!e !he s$s!ema!i"i!$ o& language a! all linguis!i" le)els, es(e"ia a! !he highes! le)el Riggen'a"h, 1999 Boung an e, 199. #i!hou! *no+lege o& an e%(erien"e +i!h !he is"ourse an so"io"ul!ural (a!!erns o& !he !arge! language, se"on language learners are li*el$ !o rel$ on !he s!ra!egies an e%(e"!a!ions a"/uire as (ar! !heir rs! language e)elo(men!, +hi"h ma$ 'e ina((ro(ria!e &or !he se"on language se!!ing an ma$ lea !o "ommuni"a!ion ii"ul!ies an misuners!anings. ne (ro'lem &or se"on language learners is limi!e e%(erien"e +i!h a )arie!$ o& in!era"!i)e (ra"!i"es in !he !arge! language. here&ore, one o& !he goals o& se"on language !ea"hing is !o e%(ose learners !o ieren! is"ourse (a!!erns in ieren! !e%!s an in!era"!ions. ne +a$ !ha! !ea"hers "an in"lue !he s!u$ o& is"ourse in !he se"on language "lassroom is !o allo+ !he s!uen!s !hemsel)es !o s!u$ language, !ha! is, !o ma*e !hem is"ourse anal$s!s see Cel"e-ur"ia lsh!ain, 2000 "Car!h$ Car!er, 1994 Riggen'a"h, 1999. ;$ e%(loring na!ural language use in au!hen!i" en)ironmen!s, learners gain a grea!er a((re"ia!ion an uners!aning o& !he is"ourse (a!!erns asso"ia!e +i!h a gi)en genre or s(ee"h e)en! as +ell as !he so"iolinguis!i" &a"!ors !ha! "on!ri'u!e !o linguis!i" )aria!ion a"ross se!!ings an "on!e%!s. >or e%am(le, s!uen!s "a s!u$ s(ee"h a"!s in a ser)i"e en"oun!er, !urn-!a*ing (a!!erns in a "on)ersa!ion 'e!+ee &riens, o(ening an "losings o& ans+ering ma"hine messages, or o!her as(e"!s o& s(ee" e)en!s. Riggen'a"h 1999 sugges!s a +ie )arie!$ o& a"!i)i!ies !ha! "an easil$ 'e aa(! !o sui! a range o& se"on language learning "on!e%!s. ne is"ourse &ea!ure !ha! is eas$ !o s!u$ is lis!ener res(onse 'eha)ior, also *no+n as 'a"*"hannels. ;a"*"hannels are !he 'rie& )er'al res(onses !ha! a lis!ener uses +hile ano!her ini)iual is !al*ing, su"h as mm-hmm, o*, $eah, an oh +o+. Lis!ener res(onse "an also 'e non-)er'al, &or ins!an"e hea nos. Resear"h has ien!ie )aria!ion among languages in !he use o& 'a"*"hannels, +hi"h ma*es i! an in!eres!ing &ea!ure !o s!u$.
'a"*"hannels, !heir (la"emen! in !he ongoing !al*, an !heir in!er(re!a!ion '$ !he (ar!i"i(an!s Clan"$, hom(son, 3uu*i, ao, 1996. 3!uen!s "an (ar!i"i(a!e in !he Re"or-
C"CL!SI" In sum, !ea"hers "an use is"ourse anal$sis no! onl$ as a resear"h me!ho &or in)es!iga!ing !heir o+n !ea"hing (ra"!i"es 'u! also as a !ool &or s!u$ing in!era"!ions among language learners. Learners "an 'ene! &rom using is"ourse anal$sis !o e%(lore +ha! language is an ho+ i! is use !o a"hie)e "ommuni"a!i)e goals in ieren! "on!e%! hus is"ourse anal$sis "an hel( !o "rea!e a se"on language learning en)ironmen! !ha! more a""ura!el$ re@e"!s ho+ language is use an en"ourages learners !o+ar !heir go o& (ro"ien"$ in ano!her language. RE>EREFCE3 Cel"e-ur"ia, ,. lsh!ain, E. 2000. =Dis"ourse an "on!e%! in language !ea"hing.= Fe+ Bor* Cam'rige Gni)ersi!$ ress. Clan"$, ., hom(son, 3., 3uu*i, R., ao, . 1996. he "on)ersa!ional use o& rea"!i) !o*ens in English, a(anese, an anarin. =ournal o& ragma!i"s, 26,= H55-H7.
a!"h, E. 1992. =Dis"ourse an language eu"a!ion.= Fe+ Bor* Cam'rige Gni)ersi!$ ress. ohnson, . 1995. =Gners!aning "ommuni"a!ion in se"on language "lassrooms.= Fe Bor* Cam'rige Gni)ersi!$ ress. "Car!h$, . 1992. =Dis"ourse anal$sis &or language !ea"hers.= Fe+ Bor* Cam'rige Gni)ersi!$ ress. "Car!h$, ., Car!er, R. 1994. =Language as is"ourse ers(e"!i)es &or language !ea"hers.= Fe+ Bor* Longman. Riggen'a"h, . 1999. =Dis"ourse anal$sis in !he language "lassroom
Li'rar$ Re&eren"e 3ear"h
lease no!e !ha! !his si!e is (ri)a!el$ o+ne an is in no +a$ rela!e !o an$ >eeral agen"$ or ERIC uni!. >ur!her, !his si!e is using a (ri)a!el$ o+ne an lo"a!e ser)er. his is F a go)ernmen! s(onsore or go)ernmen! san"!ione si!e. ERIC is a 3er)i"e ar* o& !he G.3. :o)ernmen!. his si!e e%is!s !o (ro)ie !he !e%! o& !he (u'li" omain ERIC Do"umen!s (re)iousl$ (rou"e '$ ERIC. Fo ne+ "on!en! +ill e)er a((ear here !ha! +oul in an$ +a$ "hallenge !he ERIC 3er)i"e ar* o& !he G.3. :o)ernmen!.
Popular Pages •
Home
Site Links
