4+-+Discourse+analysis


 * Chapter 7 **
 * DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS **
 * by Deborah Poole **

Stevens identified applied linguistics (AL) as a //dynamic discipline// which links with discourse analysis (DA). Though their close relationships are viewed by a variety of theoretical perspectives, connections between them are independent and well-established. Applied Linguistics (AL) generally focuses on second language learning, that is why it is relevant to real-world and language related issues. Its focus is broad because of its close relationship with DA which connects characteristics of language use to multiple contextual dimensions such as //ideological orientation//, //relations of power//, or //institutional constraints//.


 * Language Learning and Discourse Analysis **

Discourse analysis and second language concerns have put vividly in the domains (spheres) of communicative language teaching, English for specific purposes, classroom-based research, contrastive rhetoric, and interlanguage pragmatics. From different perspectives applied linguists analyze the natural language use i.e. speech act theory, functional linguistics, conversation analysis, the ethnography of speaking, and text linguistics. Besides, there is also another issue about how the data should be collected –qualitatively (focus on contextualized descriptions of language in use) or quantitatively (focus on counting separate language features).


 * DA in communicative Language Teaching and English Purposes **

Discourse analytic theory and research is observed from the perspective of communicative language teaching (CLT) and English for specific purposes (ESP). In early CLT attention was focused on language use beyond classroom settings with the use of notional-functional syllabus. But the original link between Discourse Analysis and communicative teaching of spoken language stepped back in significance. In case of ESP in linking of students' needs to scientific and technological settings discourse accounts were found in contexts associated with the specific setting.


 * Contrastive rhetoric **

Another worth-mentioning point in discourse analysis of written text is contrastive rhetoric. It is the first serious present-day study of second language writing in which cross-cultural research is important. One of its main concerns is how the writing process is affected by the differences of cultures and languages. And its primary aim has been to make the teachers aware of specific differences in the written text rather than to offer teaching practices for that.

**THE SEPARATION OF SPEECH AND WRITING **

Though there is a tendency to separate written and spoken language, the fact is that everyday language use involves the complex interplay of both. In pedagogical literature several authors argue for this integrated skills approach to language teaching and also some authors reject a distinction between them as “a construct of researchers, not an accurate portrayal of reality across cultures”. **Discourse Analysis and Classroom Interaction**

DA and the teaching of writing are also observed in the classroom as a social context. Classroom interactions can be very useful in teaching writing. The analysis of classroom discourse can acknowledge much about the influence of communicative tasks on interaction and the contrast between interaction and traditional language learning activities. "The interaction in communicative classrooms bore little resemblance to conversations but were characterized by more typical teacher-talk features, such as display questions" (Long and Sato, 1983). Long and Sato state that communicative use of language composes only a minor part of classroom activities. Role plays, Jigsaw activities, pair works and group works are considered very useful for language learning in non-classroom context, because these activities can allow students to go out of the boundaries of default scripts.


 * Discourse Analysis in Classroom-Based Research **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Most L2 classroom-based research is based on the notion that learner's interactional modifications, including clarification requests, confirmation checks and repair sequences, promote acquisition of the target language. The argument which is sometimes termed the 'interaction hypothesis', says that more modifications elicit more comprehensible input. Due to this focus, the body of L2 classroom-based research had very little effect on classroom practice.


 * <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">New Directions in Classroom-Based Research **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">In recent years the number of interactional analyses has considerably increased. And this shift suggests a new approach to the link between the analysis of spoken discourse and L2 pedagogy. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">A great number of studies have been carried out which reveal some interesting points and phenomena. One of these studies showed that ''learners have the flexibility to turn interaction in 'one-way' tasks into 'two way' exchanges" (Kelley, 2000). This and many other results lead to new implications for pedagogy, as well as to the need of more intense DA in classroom based - L2 research (Pool, n.d).


 * Cross-cultural Perspectives**

Cross-cultural differences and classroom-based research have very important role in language teaching practice. In 1988 in South Africa Chick analized students' choral responces in english language classrooms. Chick took into accout choral practices from the point of view of politeness theory and considered them important in "satisfying wider sociocultural norms for preserving face". Very few studies have been carried out about cross-cultural classroom differences. Cook analized Japanese students' interaction and considered situations when students commented on other students' speech. She mentioned about the importance of listening skill in order to give a meaningful responce. Though many linguists talk about the relevance of focusing on cultural issues during the process of language learning, language socialization does not find a central role in Applies Linguistics.


 * <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">NEW CONNECTIONS BETWEEN DA AND AL **

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Language use is closely linked with features of context. This theory considers language and context to be mutually constitutive phenomena. (Goodwin and Duranti, 1992). <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">There are also a range of other approaches assuming that broader dimensions of context, such as historical, institutional, ideological and cultural are reflected in the features of language use. According to conversation analysis, gesture, gaze, turn-taking, bodily orientation are the most relevant language features. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">From the view of expansive approaches, there should be connection between spoken and written discourse; this will lead to the understanding of their interaction. Through this type of analysis there is a possibility of a more broadly focused DA across several L2 domains of inquiry.

<span style="display: block; height: 1px; left: -40px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; position: absolute; top: -25px; width: 1px;">In case of ESP in linking of students needs to scientific and technological settings discourse accounts were found in contexts associated with the specific settings.