1. BACKGROUND The analysis of classroom discourse is of value to teachers wanting to understand the dynamics of classroom communication, to discover “whether there is a proper equilibrium or an imbalance between real communication and teacher talk.” (McCarthy 1991). During my MS coursework, we learned about Sinclair and Coulthard’s conversation analysis model which struck me as a very useful tool to analyze classroom discourse. The three-tier model is particularly helpful in gauging the progress of teachers’ pedagogical goals and students’ learning in real time. 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 The Importance of Analyzing Discourse The foremost claim about the importance of analyzing discourse is rooted in the role of language in society. The social relevance of discourse analysis is that the very choice or extension of the object or field of linguistic research—actual language use in its social context—already satisfies a condition of social relevance—it provides insight into the forms and mechanisms of human communication and verbal interaction (van Dijk, 1985). Discourse analysis provides an explicit account of the fact that discourse structures are multifarious and they change according to the context of interaction and communication. Thus, discourse analysis serves as an essential contribution to the ‘language in use’. 2.2 Classroom Discourse As a language teacher, we need to be able to engage our learners with a variety of English text such as songs, newspaper, movies, websites, and so forth. If this is done, not only the learners are more exposed to a variety of discourses, they are also likely to be more motivated to learn since the language that they get is authentic as opposed to the inauthentic classroom books. Limiting the language... ... middle of paper ... ... 1991. Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. “Towards an analysis of discourse”. Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. Ed. Malcolm Coulthard et al. London: Routledge, 1992. Sinclair, J. and Brazil, D. Teacher Talk: Oxford University Press, 1982 Stubbs, M. Language, Schools and Classrooms. London: Methuen, 1976 Tsui, A. “A functional description of questions”. Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. Ed. Malcolm Coulthard. London: Routledge, 1992. van Dijk, T. “Introduction: the role of discourse analysis in society”. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol 4. London: Academic Press, 1985 Willis, D. “Caught in the act: using the rank scale to address problems of delicacy.” Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. Ed. Malcolm Coulthard. London: Routledge, 1992.
Sacks, H. (1992) Lectures on Conversation, edited by G. Jefferson, Oxford and Cambridge, Mass.: Basil Blackwell.
To examine various discourses, it is crucial that the idea of discourse and the way in which discourses operate is clear. A discourse is a language, or more precisely, a way of representation and expression. These "ways of talking, thinking, or representing a particular subject or topic produce meaningful knowledge about the subject" (Hall 205). Therefore, the importance of discourses lies in this "meaningful knowledge," which reflects a group’s ideolo...
A discourse community has an agreed set of common public goals. It is a group of individuals that have a specific way of interacting and communicating with one another. It is also used as a means to maintain and extend a group’s knowledge, as well as initiate new members into the group. Specific kinds of languages are used as a form of social behavior. Such discourse communities vary in size, purpose and importance.
A Discourse Community is a group of people that share a set of goals or discourses and within this group, find ways to communicate about these set goals. Discourse Communities can mean having a spot on a sports team, being a part of a school club, and even your workplace can be considered a discourse community. To be accepted into a discourse community, one must seen as a credible source, one that has knowledge on the topic at hand and can help the group reach the goals of the discourse community. When joining a discourse community, it is important that one learns how those in the group use effective ways of communicating.
A general definition of a discourse community is the different groups of people one socializes with, either voluntarily or obligatory. I believe that membership in a discourse community holds more value than any ordinary friend group. A “discourse community” is a group of people who share knowledge of a particular topic, similar backgrounds and experiences, values, and common ways of communicating. Gee defines discourse communities as a “form of life which integrates words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothing” (Downs 484). According to Swales, there are six characteristics that mak...
Millions… millions of discourse communities exist all around us each and every day. Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, Tumblr, and Group Me are just a few of the many examples of the functional discourse communities that our world consists of today. A discourse community is a group of people who share a set of discourses that are agreed upon as basic values and expectations and use communication to achieve set goals. There are six requirements to have a true discourse community. They must include: a community of people who share the same goals, regular communication, steady feedback and advice from one another, at least one means of communication that will assist in achieving an aspired goal, a lexis which is a
The source text was originally published in print, in Gee’s book, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method.
Rhetorical analysis is often quite broad. One rhetorical artifact can frequently exhibit traits of all occasions, modes of appeal and numerous elements of argument. This paper will analyze those that are most prevalent in Hastings’ blog. Consequently, this arti...
Parker, I. (2005). Lacanian discourse analysis in psychology: Seven theoretical elements. Theory & Psychology, 15: 163–82.
Wodak, R. (1997) ‘Critical discourse analysis’, in T. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction, London: Sage.
Power use is around us whether noticed or not. Power in Discourse Analysis is a medium to achieve an end. The end is for stronger of the two sides of the discourse. Power in discourse analysis is the use of language in a discourse allowing the person who acquires knowledge and high status in the discourse takes control of the discourse thus having the higher power. In the following paragraphs, I will discuss nature of power argued in Discourse Analysis, attempts made to define ‘power’ in social research and discuss the different types of power.
One key aspect that sets us apart from any other species is our development of language and how we grow and utilize it. Moreover, the theory of Social Constructionism, which is the idea that we all share a subjective meaning in a particular society and continue to develop and give meaning, has had a large role in developing our own discourse, the language used in social context and created due to institutions and social practices (Ainsworth et al. 31). Reflecting on the theory of Social Constructionism and the concept of discourse and its development, our life experiences show how language, unconsciously, relates to our theories and concepts of sociology and human development through the lifespan.
Being successful on a professional field requires a lot of efforts and dedication. Before one could enter a new profession, one needs to know and understand the underlying rules and norms required to fit in to a target profession. Different professions have their own different norms, traditions, and forms of communication. In order to achieve a common goal, some professions might require one to have a lot of technical skills, and some might require great communication and writing skills. One might be able to define this as a discourse community. The term discourse community can be identified as “a grouping of people who share common language norms, characteristics, patterns, or practices as a consequence of their ongoing communications and identification with each other.” (ncte.org). Understanding the importance of such underlying rules and norms of a discourse community is important as it gives someone an insight on how to fully incorporate oneself to this kind of environment. In this assignment and the course of this paper, I will investigate a discourse community I am hoping to join professionally. The professional discourse community I am hoping to join is business. With my specific discourse community being business, there was a wide range of disciplines for me to choose from. The one that interests me the most is management. I became interested in business management as a major due its broad field for someone like me to explore and enhance my skills and knowledge on how business works and its day to day processes. For that being said, I interviewed a professional in the business management field and done a research on it to learn the underlying rules, traditions, patterns, communication and writing skills needed to enter and...
This method is defined as an approach characterized by the interaction between cognition, discourse and society. What seems to be the main difference between Fairclough’s and van Dijk’s approach is the second dimension, which mediates between the other two. Whereas van Dijk perceives social cognition and mental models as mediating between discourse and the social, Fairclough believes that this task is assumed by discourse practices (text production and consumption). Cognition, the key element in van Dijk’s approach, is achieved in collective mental models as a result of consensus and becomes the interface between societal and discourse structures (van Dijk, 2009). There seems to be a dialectical relationship between societal structures and discursive interaction. Discourse is the medium by which societal structures are “enacted, instituted, legitimated, confirmed or challenged by text and talk” (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997, p. 266). Van Dijk considers that CDA requires a model of context based on Moscovici’s (2000) social representation theory: social actors involved in discourse do not exclusively make use of their individual experiences, but rely upon collective frames of perception known as social representations, a bulk of the concepts, values, norms, associations, explanations and images shared in
‘Discourse’ 2004, in The Sage Dictionary of Cultural Studies, Sage UK, London, United Kingdom, viewed 8th December 2013,