Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1/38
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, Grices 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.
2/38
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.
3/38
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).
4/38
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.
5/38
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.
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.
6/38
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.
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 readers
7/38
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.
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.
8/38
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).
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
9/38
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.
(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 Griceans cooperative principles and the notions of adjacency pairs and turntaking.
(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
10/ 38
makes when 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.
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 didnt mean to).
In this example, the second sentence not only shows the cohesive device of ellipsis with She didnt
mean to but also with by the ellipsis of conjunction since the adversative meaning of but is
expressed by the rising-falling tone.
11/ 38
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 writers 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 readers attention; and cacophony and slang to make the piece of writing lively and dynamic.
12/ 38
13/ 38
(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 disturbing 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 learners part to process inferentially the speaker or writers 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
14/ 38
for the core of this study: discourse analysis strategies within our current communicative approach
in educational terms.
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 ones 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,
15/ 38
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).
16/ 38
Of course, this classification is not the only one and others followed. Thus, OMalley (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).
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, Grices 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.
17/ 38
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.
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 Chomskys notion of competence (1965), defined as a speaker-hearers
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
18/ 38
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.
19/ 38
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.
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
20/ 38
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).
Hallidays 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.
So, lexical categories involve general vocabulary under different perspectives: simple
vs. complex, formal vs. informal, dialect vs. register, polite vs. familiar, spoken vs.
21/ 38
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 writers main intention or
purpose when writing the passage); secondly, technique deals with the understanding of
the means by which the writers 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.
22/ 38
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 Hallidays method taking
into account the other three figures contributions since they all help configurate our study.
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
23/ 38
utterances (Beaugrande & Dress ler, 1988), that is, intra-text linking devices are connected to extratextual 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. Ive 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
24/ 38
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?).
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.
25/ 38
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.
26/ 38
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 oclock?, Er, I...,
Its..., And then..., Weve 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..., Its..., 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. Weve bitten him up vs. Weve bit m up).
27/ 38
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.
28/ 38
29/ 38
psychological cues are lacking, and thus it is more difficult for speakers to follow turntaking.
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.
30/ 38
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.
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.
31/ 38
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.
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 speakers
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 speakers internal state, such as hesitation or interjections.
Changes in a speakers 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).
32/ 38
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
33/ 38
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.
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
34/ 38
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 guidelines 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.
35/ 38
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 speakers day to day interaction. Language represents the
deepest manifestation of a culture, and peoples 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.
36/ 38
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W. 1988. Introduction to Text Linguistics . London: Longman.
B.O.E. 2002. Consejera de Educacin y Cultura. Decreto N. 112/2002, de 13 de septiembre. Currculo de la Educacin
Secundaria Obligatoria en la Comunidad Autnoma de la Regin de Murcia.
B.O.E. 2002. Consejera de Educacin y Cultura. Decreto N. 113/2002, de 13 de septiembre. Currculo de Bachillerato en
la Comunidad Autnoma de la Regin 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.
37/ 38
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.
38/ 38