Stephen van Vlack
Sookmyung Women`s University
Graduate School of TESOL
Discourse Analysis (Spring 2004)
Week 10 - PD Chapter 9, DAC Chapter 1 - Answers
1. Summarize some of the main points you have learned about pragmatic development and explain how they can be used to help you be a better teacher of English speaking! (PD)
My summary is going to take the form of selecting certain passages form the text which I find particularly useful and discussing them individually.
Highlights from Kasper and Rose (2002) Chapter 9
...research conducted from a cognitive-processing perspective as well as from different or combined social-practice approaches with an analytical focus on situational interactional engagements have demonstrated potential for explaining different facets of L2 pragmatic learning.
This is a very general idea which tells us that if we really want to focus on speaking we're going to have to rethink our entire perspective on language and language learning. This great shift is going to take place and basically three different areas. The first of these is that we are going to have to change are teaching perspective and learning perspective to one based on cognitive processing. This revolves around the familiar idea of noticing and attention focus. But this movement goes deeper. In order to focus on the noticing as a way of getting our students to learn what we need to change the types of input that we give them as well as the situations of the context in which the teaching is generally set to occur. In response to this we also need to change our views about how language works. Instead of thinking of language as some sort of mathematical computational cool which works all by itself provided we have the data we need to think of language is a holistic type of ecosystem which functions certainly with patterns but not necessarily a planned or easily controlled basis. This leads us to the second shift which relates to creating a social environment in the classroom. We talk about this in relation to sociocultural theory. Basically, we need to create a situation in the classroom which allows people to be exposed to natural input and react to natural types of input. Classrooms need to become places for engagement not places for sleeping and hiding. Lastly we need to former shift from a teacher focused classroom to a more student focused classroom and the best way that this would seem to take place would be to try to initiate an analytical focus on language for the students. This means that the students will be analyzing both native speaker produce language and their own language. Analysis and self-analysis is an extremely important aspect of trying to people to learn how to speak to the need to this on their own.
Cutting across the findings from these studies, we noticed a tendency for beginning learners to rely on pregrammticalized productions, routine formulae, and repetition, which gradually give way to an expansion of their pragmatic repertoire and overgeneralization of one form for a range of different functions.
This comment reminds us of the way in which people learn language in natural settings. This is very important at least because in more formal settings like classrooms students are rarely expected or even allowed to to do this. As a result we have students who wind up just be able to try to produce language completely from the bottom up. Is my feeling that the matter what the proficiency level or age of a student we can still go back and try to instill some routines and formulas into their systems as a way of maybe linking certain ideas and cleaning up gaps which were left in their own learning. Is important to remember that formulas provide the basis of language and that to be able to build on that you have to have the formula. Without the formula you really have very little to build on. You windup building castles in the sky which come crashing down as soon as you are confronted with something different. Formulas are for everyone, but again we need to move beyond those formulas. We don't forget them we just learn ways of extending them and personalizing them.
Particularly noteworthy are findings from studies of requests, which indicate that learners rely on pregrammaticalized utterances, direct strategies, and formulaic speech in the early stages of development, with a gradual move toward conventional indirectness, followed by the introduction of internal and external modification of requests as proficiency increases.
This passage again reiterates what we talked about above extending it from just beginning learners to all learners. From this we can see that there is some sort of general developmental sequence. As teachers this is invaluable information for us because we need to guide as best we can (and don't kid yourself into thinking that you actually have too much power in this guiding process) a process of pragmatic acquisition as it is used for producing acceptable utterances.
Putting together the evidence on early and later acquisitional periods, it appears that learners at different stages of pragmalinguistic developments face different learning tasks: Early learners have to acquire the L2 grammatical means to express already existing pragmatic categories, whereas later learners have to tease out the pragmatic meanings to which their now available L2 grammatical knowledge can be put.
There are two main points to be gleaned from this passage. The first of these is that at different stages in life people are confronted by different types of situations in which they are expected to use language. That is, children use language or are expected to use language in different situations and in different ways than adults. Different types of adults, depending on their job, age, status, are also expected to do different things and we must heed this in mind. The second major point to be derived from this passage is that within the developmental sequence defects of transfer would seem to be quite different. We talked about this in respect to the question of which proceeds the other pragmatic knowledge or grammatical knowledge. The passage tells us that in the earlier stages certainly pragmatic knowledge seems to proceed grammatical knowledge based on simple idea of transfer. Therefore, with beginning learners our focus is to try to give them the forms they need to use some of the very basic pragmatic skills which they are aware of and conceptually can deal with. As proficiency goes up than transfer has more or less exhausted itself and grammar begins to proceed or take precedence over pragmatic knowledge. In this case of what we've been need to do is try to enhance more specific aspects of pragmatic knowledge related to target language culture so that the learner can use the grammar they have more accurately and for more different purposes. It should be clear that this is the general natural acquisitional cycle as it is currently understood through the limit amout of research which has been done. In Korea, but don't really pay much attention to these different cycles. Everything is grammar focused and very little attention, if any, has been shown to pragmatic awareness. This is something which must be rectified.
....such opportunities are related to context and tasks.
This very simple passage underscores the absolute necessity of context and tasks in dealing with input as a way of creating opportunities for learning. We can't escape these two essential elements. Yet, in most teaching these days these are exactly the elements that are missing. Certainly people give lip service to them but very little has Ashley been done to deal with them effectively.
...the activities in which learners participate, and the occasions afforded learners for engagement as listeners and speakers, are relevantly related to pragmatic learning.
What this passage tells us is again that it is a type practice that we developed for our students and attentive input that we give them which basically will determine how much or how little they learn in relation to pragmatic competence. This is basically the result of studies that work until it in target language environments where people still felt learn despite the presence of input and all different kinds of input everywhere. Just having the input is simply not enough. More important is what people do with the input or if people even notice the input. Just because something is there doesn't mean people are going to actually notice it. Revert he talked about the small experiment I did this semester with some young students and which basically showed that they do not notice input that is around them. This is something which we need to change by getting students to develop habits which encourage them to engage input instead of avoiding it. Maybe the desolate doing this is to change attitudes to the English language.
....the right question to ask is not whether pragmatics can be learned in the classroom but how classrooms can be arranged to most effectively support pragmatic development.
This is a simple reaffirmation of the very energizing finding that pragmatics not only can be taught in the classroom but it actually should be in maybe must be taught in the classroom for foreign language students. If they don't learn pragmatics in the classroom where else they going to learn it? That is the basic idea which means that we as teachers need to find a way of solving this problem. Ignoring pragmatics, as we have been doing for very very long time, is certainly not the answer.
Results of these studies [studies into teachability] strongly suggest that most aspects of L2 pragmatics are indeed teachable, that instructional intervention is more beneficial than no instruction specifically targeted on pragmatics, and for the most part, explicit instruction combined with ample practice opportunities results in greatest gains.
As a conclusion to this we finally get the Golden quote, which basically tells us that we need to teach pragmatics, and that this teaching of pragmatics is going to revolve around not only the input that we give our students and but the context in which the students operate as well as the practice that we give our students. Certainly certain things must be explained overtly but this not a license for the teacher to the talk and talk and talk. Any overt teaching should be balanced by a large amount of practice and self-discovery on the part of the students. Overt teaching or mentioning certain aspects overtly help the students to focus their attention denies its main purpose. Don't kid yourself into thinking that what you teacher students overtly is actually going to be remembered. Anything you say is only going to be remembered in the practice that they engage in as they pull the new bits of information have noticed into their own internal system.
2. Describe the four different kinds of communicative competencies and how can each serve as a basis of discourse analysis activities? (DAC)
Communicative competence in discourse analysis is equal to the discourse orientation to language. There are the four different types of communicative competencies which are soico-linguistic competence, linguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence. The former two types or soico-linguistic competence, linguistic competence were originally developed by Savignon (1983) and Hymes (1972). The latter two types or discourse competence, and strategic competence were initially developed by Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983). These four types are cooperative, rather than separate capacity and construct together communicative competence. The communicative competence allows learners to develop the ability to notice pragmatics as well as evaluate them. In addition, the activities in discourse analysis induce learners not only to improve the notice ability and evaluation ability but also to perform their language use during the activities.
2.1 SOCIO-LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE
Soico-linguistic competence is related to appropriateness to effectively communicate. If activities are designed to reveal how social and cultural dynamics interact with text and shape speech events, these activities can facilitate the development of soico-linguistic competence.
When we EFL teachers consider how to stimulate and develop the socio-linguistic competence of learners, several important issues arise.
(1) Should there be a distinction between competence and performance?
Competence refers to knowledge about culture while performance to experience of and in culture?
(2) We have to choose which usages represent which particular speech community
(3) Should socio-linguistic competence include the obligation to behave in correspondence with socially accepted conventions of a particular speech community?
Together with these issues, there are some factors we should take into account when the activities are designed.
(1) The proficiency level of learners should be considered because it restrict or define their awareness to or noticing socio-pragmatic and socio-linguistic items or facts within a particular culture.
(2) The learners' sensitivity to learner settings and their preferences
should be kept in mind, as well.
Grounded on these issues and considerations, from the perspective of macro-level, learners are able to understand how the social structure shape and influence the world view and how social and cultural factors frame the production and interpretation of messages through the activities in discourse analysis. Language as a means of socialization, understanding discourse patterns leads to enhance the ability to use language to communicate. Therefore, if the learners acquire the new forms of discourse, it is said that they acquire the ability to recognize the ways that social and cultural forces affect how interactions are organized and interpreted. On the other hand, in order to interpret spoken messages accurately and comprehensively, the learners are required to have the background socio-cultural knowledge about the rhetoric structures and conventions which shape the discourse. As a result, the activities in macro-level discourse analysis should be appropriate means for learners to examine and evaluate these social and cultural factors.
The perspective will be turned to the macro-level, together with more practical activities. EFL/ ESL teachers should bear in mind the social and cultural gap between their own learners and the original readers of the literature being presented and they should provide the social and cultural background information for their students. The literature is also influenced by the culture which affects how writing is created. The texts generated by particular discourse communities should be considered. Writing is the convention-bound or it involves conformity to certain established patterns in particular social contexts. Therefore, the learners should identify socio-cultural factors which shape writing. From the view point of discourse analysis, the activities related to writing can be devised. First, the learners are exposed to speech events which they would encounter. Second, teachers set the similar contexts to the speech events or duplicate contexts which elicit these speech events. Finally, the learners have opportunities to practice speech events in the replicated settings by their teachers. During these activities, the learners notice form-function mapping, associate structure and genre, sensitize to social factors and at last recognize how language is perceived in terms of appropriateness. This is all about teaching writing.
Another form of teaching writing is the process approach in writing. First, the learners start with their own experience to the world. Second, the learners should take into account audience and pay attention to audience since meaning in the texts should be negotiated in order to be accessible to the readers, which induces learners to notice the influences of social context. Last, the owner of creativity should be emphasized.
In connection with teaching four skills in integrative ways, the activities in discourse analysis can focus on the social and cultural factors which frame the written texts and which affects how a text is read. The learners can focus on the conventions related to particular genres both in writing and in reading. They figure out the ways in which vocabulary and grammar correspond with genres. Moreover, the attention to genre can be the objectives of speaking. The learners can notice and evaluate how vocabulary and grammar correspond with speech events and with register or how formal or informal the speech acts are. In listening, these activities can be extended to explore the broader social and cultural factors that frame the production and interpretation of messages.
2.2 LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE
Linguistic competence is immediately related to accuracy of form at more micro level which can be integrated with the three types of communicative competence. Accuracy of form may prevent fossilization. How to teach accuracy of form regards the ways in which form, meaning, and function integrated. Accordingly, teaching techniques focus on encouraging the learners to operate in the role of language researcher. First, the learners notice and evaluate the grammatical structures naturally loaded in authentic written and spoken discourse. The learners are able to observe the grammatical structure such as verb tenses, the passive voice, article usage, etc in the authentic written and spoken discourse. Afterwards, they inductively construct hypothesis about rules in regard with these structure. More specifically, they make hypothesis about why particular grammatical choices were made instead of others. Likewise, accuracy of form can be taught obviously at micro level.
Focusing on accuracy of form does not definitely mean that grammatical structure should be taught in an explicit way. Since the activities in discourse analysis concentrate on micro-level structures, the linguistic accuracy here contains different levels and features other than morphosyntax. In Kroll's (1990) study of ESL college-level composition, the students were able to notice discourse factors such as logical connectors which contributes to coherence, being lacking in grammar. In another study of Riggenbach (1991), the learners were able to perceive as being native-like in their use of certain conversation micro structures such as repairs and turn-claiming devices, being lacking in grammatical and phonological proficiency.
Accuracy of form can be extended into form to function mapping in the sociolinguistic context. The activities can be designed to activate the recognition of form-genre relationships. This recognition can facilitate linguistic competence as well as sociolinguistic competence.
The learners are able to figure out and to anticipate which features of discourse structures some speech events and some genres take.
2.3 DISCOURSE COMPETENCE
Discourse competence should be defined both in a narrower and broader sense so that the learners are beneficial from it. In a narrower sense, Canale (1983) defined discourse competence as the ability to connect utterances or sentences so that there may exist cohesion and coherence. In a broader sense, In a broader sense, discourse competence implies the greater awareness of the context which indicates noticing a necessary condition for creating and maintaining cohesion and coherence across the text. Accordingly, the activities with regard to discourse competence can be designed both at micro level and at macro-level.
At micro level, it is possible to teach discourse competence in an explicit way, focusing on the targeted features such as specific cohesive devices or transition signals. For example, activities may target cohesive devices in reading and writing (Silberstein 994), turn-taking devices in informal conversation (Dornyei and Thurrell 1992; Riggenbach 1998), discourse markers and transition devices in teaching listening strategies (Dunkel and Davis 1994; Dudley-Evans 1994) and discourse markers and transition devices in planning oral presentations (Wennerstrom 1991).
At macro level, the activities in discourse competence should be appropriate to raise the holistically contextual awareness. It should deserve attention that micro level lies on the continuum with macro level. This holistically contextual awareness simultaneously focus on a micro-level constituents since these specific constituents construct text-level cohesion and coherence at macro-level.
2.4 STRATEGIC COMPETENCE
Strategic competence is closely associated with cognitive strategy and at the same time with learner's autonomy and creativity. Strategic competence refers to the ability to avoid breakdown of communication. Since learners have relatively more limitive competence in negotiating meaning in the target language, they should employ and create their own strategies to go on communicating with others. Actually, there exists the gap between learners' current linguistic competence and the linguistic competence required for communication. Accordingly, even though learners' linguistic resources are not automatic or not appropriate for discourse expressions, they have develop strategic competence to make up or compensate the gap between learners' current linguistic competence and the linguistic competence required for communication.
Strategic competence covers a wider scope in negotiating meaning.
First, learners are able to structure new input so that it may be understood by the listener or to decipher text which was previously opaque. Afterwards, they are able to shape or reshape their own communications so that they are understood by the receivers of the message.
In addition, strategic competence is closely associated with cognitive strategy. Inferencing and contextualization as a cognitive strategy can be consciously learned and useful to improve reading skills. Inferencing and contextualization is also applicable to discourse analysis. Inferencing and contextualization can facilitate the development of learners' awareness of the patterns and regularities of language. Moreover, if negotiating meaning put a greater emphasis in reader-text as well as in speaker-listener contexts, the learners are able to develop their strategic competence more effectively.
3. How do recent trends in second language acquisition theory and pedagogy support the use of discourse analytic techniques in the language classroom? (DAC)
The communicative movement supports a learner-centered approach to language teaching which shifts some responsibility from the teacher to the student and moves away from the traditional authoritarian, teacher-centered curriculum. Also, it supports the use of authentic materials and actual reasons for communicating. This approach to teaching would naturally support the use of discourse analysis activities as a means of encouraging students to act as language researchers who themselves learn to use the tools of discourse analysis. In this way themselves become investigators and discover patterns in the L2 and also sociocultural influences that affect the meaning of a text. The use of group and pair work while using the text as discourse and the encouragement of collaboration among students in finding the pieces to the puzzle of meanings is all in keeping with communicative approaches to language learning. Thus the students are not only communicating with each other but are developing skills as language researchers and discourse analysts because the primary goal of a discourse-based communicative activity is to generate hypothesis about the language feature under discussion and to observe what is systematic about it.
Other recent trends in SLA theory that would support the use of discourse analysis techniques are: the focusing on the intrinsic motivation of the learner, the favoring of teaching methods that address learners' needs and orient themselves to communicative goals and designing curricula that cover content-centered, task-based matter. By providing students with tools of discourse analysis, we can help them become more autonomous and also better collaborators in the journey of language learning. It stands to reason that once their self-starter attitude is fired up, the self education process will continue to flow beyond the classroom.
Discourse analysis activities set up as problem solving language-based tasks can help generate hypothesis about the discourse structure being focused on and explicitly address language or culture. Through the task-based discovery activities, students can integrate their linguistic and cognitive competence. Also, when tasks are selectively planned, revised and conducted according to learners needs and goals, students become more responsible for their own learning.
Task based approaches are designed so that language learning that takes place inside the classroom will be applied to situations outside the classroom. The activity can be a kind of rehearsal for future performances. This is why; when creating projects based on discourse analysis the interests and needs of the students are so important. It has been claimed by Hatch (1986), that learners who engage in language-learning processes are successful language learners. Therefore making goals conscious enables more effective learning.
4. How might discourse analysis activities be adapted to address different language teaching contexts? (DAC)
Discourse analysis activities are open-ended where students can express their own idea or opinion. In these activities, teachers are co researcher and facilitator, not expert. It is necessarily learner-centered activities. It increases students' motivation for language learning. Students can be confident about their competence to find out the principle of language structure. It enables students to find out their own linguistic strength and weakness. Students can show their confidence about their improvement because students know the objective of specific lesson and provide the ideas and opinions about their learning matters during activities. Students invest for their leaning and foot with the teacher equally as language researchers in discourse analysis activities.
In activities, learners examine different micro level features and macro level structure such concepts and topics as power, belief system, and emotion. Students focus attention on the patterns that work in natural discourse. They observe the spoken language in the process of the activity, listening to, analyzing the data which are provided by native or expert speakers. They might infer and build the hypothesis about the possible patterns in data: what patterns and structures are and how they work in the discourse. In addition, students might identity the social norm and social structure of target language. They can rate or figure out the power, belief system, roles, and emotion in discourse.
Discourse analysis activities might be adapted to address different language teaching context: where different kinds of students' populations exist, where skills are instructed as independent or integrated courses, where institution restricts teaching method, teachers can not choose textbook and material, and design the course.
Discourse analysis activities can be adapted in context with different kinds of student populations: the different learning style, different needs or goals, and a variety of attitudes. These activities guide how teachers should design activities to satisfy their own student's needs and goals. Teachers can build activities diversely and flexibly in different educational environments, focusing on the spoken language. Students can practice oral skills in the process of language research because they talk about their research finding, compare cultures, and analyze language data which they produce. In addition, students can explore a variety of topics which activate their interest, performing 'interpretive research' which can have them understand the wider social environment and classroom culture. If the students are not accustomed to the learner-centered context, they can be assisted and guided to conduct the discourse analysis activities.
Teachers guide students to analyze their own spoken language data and to design how to practice the activities further for spoken accuracy, it they consider spoken language accuracy as important teaching target. According to author, in his discourse analysis class, many students targeted their listening comprehension because all classes use English. Bilinguals were more interested in examining the macro features such as issues of sociolinguistic appropriateness, cultural practices, or storytelling. Others concerned special grammatical structures, comparing African English with British or American English. Or they focus on micro-level systems in conversation such as repair, turn changes, or backchannels.
The discourse analysis activities are adapted for specific populations and class settings related to age and proficiency level. For example, LEP (limited English proficiency) students can be provided with the storytelling activities and beginning level students with the child language acquisition activity or the new words activity. Perez (1996) adapts these activities into beginning level grammar class. Students were require to listen for unfamiliar word and phrases in conversation outside of classroom, and then, they wrote them on the board after saying them loudly. The other students in the class should contextualize them, predicting who speaks, where it happens, what the topic of conversation is. They practiced the present and past progressive and simple present and past. They also used modals of prediction unexpectedly.
When discourse analysis activities are conducted in the less than ideal context, students can be excellent resource to solve the problem. Teachers can tape the discussion of students in collaborative groups for solving the problem and use as data of discourse analysis activities: to analyze how participants took turns, who led discussion in the process of development, and how they reach a consensus, and where they increase pitch and volume as a floor-gaining strategy.
The language research activities can be adapted for context where skills are instructed as independent or integrated courses. Many example of language research activities are suggested to cover multi-skills course or separated skill courses such as listening, reading, speaking, writing. The discourse analysis activities target all the skill areas connected to the spoken language.
Discourse analysis activities are adapted into the context where institution restricts teaching method, teachers can not choose textbook and material, and design the course. They can be used as supplements to a core syllabus or textbook. They can provide the framework for a whole course. In foreign language context, students can not easily access to spoken language data by native speakers. To gain the data for discourse analysis activities, they can not only use English language newspapers, magazines, and books but also access U.S. television programs or BBC radio new programs through computer networks as data sources.
Furthermore, teachers can ask expert speakers with high proficiency level in English. In the context with institutional constraints such as a grammar class with one hundred students, teachers can use discourse analysis activities. Teachers can ask students to record spoken language data in real world as individual or team homework. Teachers can use them as a material for class. Students will listen to their tape and write down examples related to the specific grammatical structures in class textbook. And then they build the hypothesis about patterns or rules and find out what their tape-recorded data is compatible with what is in textbook. Teachers can gain the spoken text created by learners and hypothesis constructed by students after these activities.