A
number of research areas within discourse analysis have received particular
attention and have become significant areas of investigation in their own
right. With respect to considerations relevant to language teaching, we will
briefly discuss five such areas:cohension, coherence, information structure and
converstaion analysis (with focus on turn-taking), and critical discourse
analysis.
COHENSION
The
use of various cohensive ties to explicitly link together all the propositions
in a text results in cohension of that text. The most obvious structural
features of such connected discourse are the cohesive ties identified and
discussed by Halliday and Hasan (1976,1989). Therte are four types of
grammatical ties (refference, ellipis, substitution, and conjunction) as well
as a varieety of lexical ties, which we discuss in greater detail in Chapter 4
and 5. The following brief text exhibit synonymous repetition as one textual
feature of cohesion that creates lexical ties :
Natural
beauty plays a starring role in Santa Monica, and seaside is the perfect
vantage from which to watch the performance. Early risers will notice that the
show begins just after sunrise.
(Santa
Monica Official Visitors Guide. 1998:18)
In
this text the same event is referred to with there different noun phrases “a
starring role” (first mention; new information; use of an indefinite article;
“the performance” (the use of the define article indicates anaphoric reference
to an earlier mention, and the semantic information relates this lexical item
to “starring role”) and “the show” (the third reference made to the same event,
which functions here as a synonym for “the performance”). This example may seem
to display a complicated system of lexical ties and refference, but such
lexical connections are very common in English writing. In the following
excerpt from a letter written by a mother asking for advice on dealing with
pre-teens, there are some examples of grammatical cohesive ties :
I
am a working mother with two pre-teens. After dropping them off at school, i
have to get right to work. But my children are disorganized and always late. A
few times, I have had to turn around and go back home because one or the other
forgot something.
(Children-LA’s
Best Calendar of Family Event. July 1998:12)
The
use of the pronoun them in the first line is an anaphoric reference to ‘two
pre-teens.” The conjunction but, which
begins the second sentence express the counter-expectation arising from the
second ant third sentences. The phrase “always late” is an elliptical form of
the cause ‘they are always late” and the phrase one or the otheer is a good
example of ellipsis at the noun phrase level meaning “one child or the other
child.” Had the writer produced the other one instead of the other we would
also have had an example of substitution in this text, one would have
substituted for child (somewhat awkwardly in the repetition of working and work
in lines 1 and 2; Childern refers bact to pre-teens and also relates more
indirectly to mother. The words school and home are semantically related items
as are disorganized and forgot someething. The cohension of the text is a
result of all these cohesive ties, which link together the words and
prepositions occuring in the text.
COHERENCE
In
addition to cohesion, which is expressed via language resources, or bottom-up
conection in text, effective discourse also requires coherence, which can be
viewed as part of top-dwon planning and organisation. Coherence contributes to
the unity of a piece of discourse such that the individual sentences hang
together and relate to each other. This unity and relatedness is partialy a
result of a recognizable organizational pattern for the prepositions and ideas
in the passage, but it also depends on the presence of linguistic devices that
strengthen global unity and create global conectedness. Recognisable patterns
may include those based on temporal or spatial relations or those based on
semantically associated relations such as problem-solution or cause-effect.
Coherence may also depend in part on patterns and strategies of text
development that are very culture specific.
While
the overall coherence of a longer passage depends on the presence of a
conventional scheme or organization that is recognizable as generic or specific
to a particular communicative purpose and discourse community, the overall
coherence of such a passage also depends on the degree of coherence within each
paragrafh or section of the text. Each sentence or utterence is related both to
the previous and following sentences in ways that lead the reader toward an
easier and more effective interpretation of the text.
The
notion of coherence applies to all four chapter in Part III of this handbook
since the ability to use top-down information and strategies to interpret discourse
(when listening or reading) or to produce discourse (when writing or speaking)
assumes an understanding of the discourse community’s assumption- as well as a
degree of control over its language conventions. These are some of the things
that constitute coherence in the target course community. We shall be
discussing more factors contributing to coherence later in Chapters 7 (Reading)
and 8 (Writing).
INFORMATION
STRUCTURE
The
mjor concern of the area of discourse analysis referred to as information structure
is the presentation of “old” (known) information versus “new” (unknown)
information. Lsnguages use grammatical and dis course features in order to
indicate which bits of information are known and which are new. European
researchers often use the terms theme and rheme. While in North America topic
and comment are more common. It seems that the basic principle for information
structure is that themes/topics (old information) generally precede
rhemes/comments (new information) in order of presentation.
In
spoken discourse, old or given information is frequently resoverable from the
situation. In written discourse, grammatical and discourse features play an
important role in making this distinction (the use determiners, pronouns, word
order in the sentence). Propositions within a larger piece of discourse also
involve more local considerations of “well formedness.” According to
bardovi-Harlig (1990), a sentence within a passage functions at three levels:
The syntactic, the semantic, and the pragmatic. In order to understand her
definitions, we need to better understand the terms “topic” and comment.”
A
topic is a discourse entity that connects one part of the discourse to other
parts through continuity in given information (i.e, old or known information) that
runs through the entire discourse and helps us understand what being discussed.
Thus, if there is a main character in the passage and most of the sentences are
about the person, the identification of the main character will be known
information and various grammatical and lexical devices will be used to connect
the sentences through references to the main character, such as in the
following text about Rona:
Rona
was the youngest of three sisters. She liked music and literature. Being the
youngest sister was in some ways a blessing and in others a curse...
In
this example all noninitial references to Rona point back to her initial
mention and link the topic of subsequent sentences in the discourse back to the
initial mention.
The
comment, on the other hand, is what is said about the topic and that is
generally new added information. In each sentence of the example some
additional information is added in the comment, develping the discourse
according to the writer intention. In the example about Rona, the topic of the
text is also the subject of the first sentence, so its initial position is part
of the normal (unmarked) rules of English grammar. However, as we shall discuss
in more detail in Chapter 4 (Grammar) and 8 (Writing), special grammatical
constructions may be used to bring forward elements that would not be found in
initial position in the usual discourse sequence. The passage might have
continuated as follows:
For
example,there was less responsibility involved in being the youngest. The most
important tasks assigned to rona’s older sisters.
Here
the grammatical subject “there” follows an introductory conjunctive tie (“foe
example”) and allows new infoemation (“less responsibility”) to function as the
marked topic of the first new sentence while the noun phrase “the most
important task” is both the subject and topict of the next sentence, amplifying
on “less responsibility.” “Rona” has temporalily become part of the two
comments (involve in being the youngest/were assigned to Rona’s sisters) For a
strength of discourse before she once again has the potential to become the
topict.
Thus
understanding how information is managed at the local can help contribute to
coherence at the global level. The three subfields of discourse anaysis
presented here were chosen to illustrate textual features of discourse that are
relevant to language teaching. The next subfield dedicated to exposing social
inequality in language.
TURN-TAKING
IN CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
In
conversation, in addition to managing new and old information in a coherent
way, the interlocutorts also have to take stock of and constantly monitor each
other to control the turn-taking system of the target language in question
since this is another feature of discourse in oral interaction. The conversational
turn-talking system (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson,1974) of any language
includes conventions govverning matters such as the following : how
conversations open and close, who speaks when and for how long, who can
interrupt (and how this is done), how topics get changed, how much time can
elapse between turn or between speakers, whether or not speakers can overlap,
and whether or not speakers can complete or repair each other’s utterances.
There are often important cultural (and subcultural) differentces in the way
discourse communities do turn-taking. A lack of understanding of these
differences can cause problems in cross-cultural communication.
One
important source of organization in the turn-taking system is the “adjacency
pair.’’ Where the first speaker says something that conventionally requires of
the interlocutor a response that is often partly predictable. Thus a typical
adjacency pair for a conventional greeting to open a conversation in English
might be :
1:
Hello, how are you ?
2:Fine,
thanks.
Other
adjacency pair often have at least two conventional options. If the first part
of the pair is an invitation, the second part can be acceptance or a refusal.
If the first part of the pair is a request for confirmation, the second part
can confirm or disconfirm:
1:You’re
from Manchester ?
2:Yes./No,
Liverpool
In
any given speech community such adjacency pairs can have highly
conventionalized and formulate phrases associated with them. Needless to say,
mastering these conventions and phrases in a second language will contribute
greatly to oral fluency and communicative competence. We shall have more to say
about this in chapter 9 (Speaking).
CRITICAL
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
The
primary interest of critical discourse analysis is to deconstruct and expose social
inequality as expressed, constituted, and legitimized through language use-
notably in the public media such as newspapers, radio, television, films,
cartoons, and the like, but also in settings such as classrooms, courtrooms,
news interviews, doctor-patient interactions, as well as in everyday talk.
Critical discourse analysis believe that discourse tends to become normative
with repeated use and thus appears to be neutral; however, in actual fact,
discourse is never neutral. It must thus be analyzed in terms of the political
ideology, social history, and power structures that it embodies and expresses,
explicitly or indirectly. The research of critical discourse analysts often
takes on a problem-posing/problem-solving quality and addresses discriminatory
use of language directed at women, lower socioeconomic classes, members of
ethnic, racial, religious, and linguistic minorities, and others. Critical
discourse analysts also may suggest remedies in the form of nondiscriminatory
behaviours and language practices that could replace the problematic discourse.
Some critical discourse analysts who are well known to language educators are
Fairclough (1995). Pennycook (1995). And Phillipson (1992).
Many
critical discourse analysts believe that education in general and foreign and
second language education in particular are ideological and political, but that
most language teachers are unaware of this. They argue that is discriminatory
and that reinforces social inequality be avoided to the extent that this is
possible, or – at the very least – explicitly and critically discussed if it
comes up.
