Читать книгу Discourse analysis applied to english language teaching in colombian contexts: theory and methods - Wilder Yesid Escobar Alméciga - Страница 12

McCarthy and Carter (1994) expressed a serious concern about the way applied linguists and other linguists were looking at the language used to teach first and second/foreign languages. These two authors challenged the practice of examining isolated uses of language and argued for a discourse-based view that “prioritizes an interactive approach to analysis of texts which take proper account of the dynamism inherent in linguistic contexts” (McCarthy and Carter, 1994, p. 38). This means that they view the language classroom as a dynamic linguistic context where texts are produced interactively. In order to demonstrate the relevance of their discourse-based view to language teaching, McCarthy and Carter (1994) analyze the way common linguistic patterns might impact pedagogical aspects such as syllabus construction, materials design, and the planning of classroom activities. They conclude that linguistic patterns are entangled together to realize what they call genre, and that the spoken or written text “is a complex balance of many diverse elements (McCarthy and Carter, 1994, p. 77).” One of the authors’ main contributions to the field of discourse analysis could be the use of the linguistic dimension of mode, which is rather a free choice of speech features made by the message sender within a social context. If language learners are able to appropriately use such a dimension they will be able to cope with different communicative situations and contexts. The dimension of mode is also useful to those involved in curriculum planning, policy making and language materials writing. This is due to the fact that learning a language is “a process of analysis, of explicit attention to language, of conscious reflection on the forms and functions of language and on the means by which meanings are made by language (McCarthy and Carter, 1994, p. 134).” This suggests that all those involved with language teaching deal with natural real language used in natural and real contexts; mode will be a way of recognizing that a question does not always seek out an oral answer because its mode might correspond to instruction, advice, or a suggestion. Finally, these two authors point out that learning a language also implies learning ‘through’ it and they prepare the ground for additional questions implying the promotion of critical language learning. This kind of learning will make learners aware of how language shapes identities and carries out ideologies and values.

Seedhouse (1995) also followed McCarthy and Carter’s concern about the predominant continuation of isolated speech-based views on classroom language. This researcher argues that an interactional discourse analysis approach to second and foreign language contexts is needed. According to him, there are five reasons for such a claim. These include the lack of unity and clarity surrounding the concept of communication, the lack of research as to how interaction in the second or foreign language classroom could foster learning, the lack of an appropriate corpus, the lack of common criteria to assess interaction, and fifth, the lack of a shared meta language to describe discourse analysis processes within language learning contexts. Seedhouse (1995) acknowledges previous discourse analysis work like that proposed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) but challenges it because, in his own words, “none of them is able to incorporate the unique feature of L2 classroom interaction: the connection between the pedagogical purposes which underlie different classroom activities and the linguistic forms and patterns of interaction which result from those classroom activities” (Seedhouse, 1995, p. 5). Long and Sato (1983) (cited by Seedhouse, 1995), have identified more than 200 code systems used to analyze classroom language but, according to them, the use of those quantification schemes “cannot constitute the basis of a methodology for the description, analysis and evaluation of L2 classroom interaction” (Seedhouse, 1995, 15). Classroom interaction analysis goes beyond coding transcripts; it is about understanding ways of communication. Seedhouse (1995) remarks that in the second or foreign language classroom, there are many kinds of possibilities for establishing communication through interaction since the pedagogical contexts to support communication vary in accordance with the learning opportunities that are provided by the participants of the interaction. The author concludes that a valid and reliable methodology to understand interaction intertwined with pedagogy in the second or foreign language classroom would be a useful tool for those involved in language teaching and that the “unique methodology which is required for the analysis of L2 interaction could be verified and supported by other established and complementary methodologies within a multiple perspective approach” (Seedhouse, 1995, p. 24). In that sense, this researcher explains that the use of ethno-methodological conversational analysis combined with a methodology of communication rules analysis, triangulation and an adequate and representative database is complementary.

In spite of Seedhouse’s (1995) concern about the use of a valid, reliable, and maybe unified methodology to analyze interaction in the second or foreign language classroom, discourse analysis has also been applied to explain other communicational realities embraced by interaction. Nunn (2001) uses a specific discourse analysis approach “to redefine the relationship between ritual and negotiation in ‘lock-step’ teaching in the light of research findings and recent re-evaluation of the notion of ritual in educational settings” (Nunn, 2001, p. 1). A lock-step teaching context is, for example, a rigidly structured lesson that does not allow unexpected changes in its own interactional processes due to the roles traditionally assigned to both teachers and students. Teachers are the ones who deliver knowledge and students are recipients of such knowledge. After analyzing several pieces of language excerpts from language classrooms, the researcher considers that discourse analysis cannot be relegated to a static model. This will shorten the view for teachers concerning finding out about more possibilities of using language in a creative way involving pedagogical significance and interest. This means that discourse analysis has an impact on curriculum development, methodology and teaching practices. If a model provided by discourse analysis dares to imply that the best way to teach is to have teacher-fronted classroom instruction, then teachers will be trained to perform in such a way. The author goes on to say that reducing interaction and teachers’ speeches to “structure misrepresents teacher-fronted classroom discourse as being more rigid and meaningless than it is. The characterization of rituals and exchanges as repertoires of limited choices is intended to redress the balance” (Nunn, 2001, p. 7). Nunn’s (2001) contribution should be added to the enormous quantity of work dealing with the study of classroom language (upon which this paper does not report). In writing this paper the author sought to outline how classroom language has been significantly researched by discourse analysis.

As a partial conclusion, it could be stated that discourse analysis transforms, apparently, in the same direction as conversation analysis. Both approaches to discourse manifestation refer to research dating from the early 1940’s. Discourse analysis has particularly focused on studying the language used in the classrooms, but due to the changeable nature of a classroom, discourse analysis has to reflexively approach its object of study and examine the best procedure with which to conduct analysis. Otherwise, discourse analysis will be unable to find a clear definition of its own limits and scope.

So far this chapter has mentioned several different approaches to discourse analysis; among them, it is possible to enumerate linguistics, socio-linguistics, speech acts, systemic functional linguistics and post-structuralist feminism. In general, discourse analysis applied to second or foreign language classrooms has been derived from first language classroom findings. The main concern discourse analysts have had is that of finding a structure that supports all kinds of possible interactions in the language classroom. A variety of meta-language has been created to explain how interactions occur within a language classroom; concepts like move, cycle, and genre are intended to theoretically support patterns of classroom interaction. However, this goal has been considered difficult to attain because what is necessary, according to some discourse analysts, is to remove the tension between what is linguistic and what is pedagogic. The ultimate goal in the language classroom arena for discourse analysts interested in foreign language settings could be to give account of how linguistic issues shape pedagogical events and vice versa in a systematic way. The explanation of how language is learnt through language would, in the future, advise all those who are involved in the processes of teaching and learning a second or foreign language. Some discourse analysts of foreign language classrooms recommend that one start by constructing a corpus. This should be representative enough to undertake systematic studies of interactions in foreign language classrooms according to generational groups (for example). Moreover, the assessment of a methodology within a multiple or interdisciplinary but coherent and limited approach to classroom discourse analysis is also needed and cannot be the focus of the chapter reconstructing the history of classroom discourse analysis as a field of interest.