The teaching plan of the practical lesson №1
Download 23.15 Kb.
|
discourse 1
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- Theme Getting acquainted with discourse analysis.
- Time
- Predicate the results of teaching activity
- The method and technology of teaching
- Info-resources and technical equipment
- 2. The technological schedule of the practical lesson
- 3.1.Speaking part (explaining the topic).
- 3.2. Defining discourse analysis (activity -1)
- 3.3. Historical view of discourse analysis.
- 3.4. Example for discourse analysis. Handout (activity-2).
The teaching plan of the practical lesson №1
2. The technological schedule of the practical lesson
3.1.Speaking part (explaining the topic). Defining discourse Discourse is the creation and organization of the segments of a language above as well as below the sentence. It is segments of language which may be bigger or smaller than a single sentence but the adduced meaning is always beyond the sentence. The term discourse applies to both spoken and written language, in fact to any sample of language used for any purpose. Any series of speech events or any combination of sentences in written form wherein successive sentences or utterances hang together is discourse. Discourse can not be confined to sentential boundaries. It is something that goes beyond the limits of sentence. In another words discourse is ‘any coherent succession of sentences, spoken or written’. The links between sentences in connected discourse are as much important as the links between clauses in a sentence.
The study of naturally occurring connected sentences, spoken or written, is one of the most promising and rapidly developing areas of modern linguistics. Traditional linguistics has concentrated on sentence-centred analysis. Now, linguists are much more concerned with the way language is ‘used’ than what its components are. One may ask how it is that language-users interpret what other language-users intend to convey. When is carried this investigation further and asked how it is that people, as language-users, make sense of what they read in texts, understand what speakers mean despite what they say, recognize connected as opposed to jumbled or incoherent discourse, and successfully take part in that complex activity called conversation, then one is undertaking what is known as discourse analysis. The first linguist to refer to discourse analysis was Zellig Harris. In 1952, he investigated the connectedness of sentences, naming his study ‘discourse analysis.’ Harris claimed explicitly that discourse is the next level in a hierarchy of morphemes, clauses and sentences. He viewed discourse analysis procedurally as a formal methodology, derived from structural methods of linguistic analysis: such a methodology could break a text down into relationships (such as equivalence, substitution) among its lower-level constituents. Structural was so central to Harris’s view of discourse that he also argued that what opposes discourse to a random sequence of sentences is precisely the fact that it has structure: a pattern by which segments of the discourse occur (and recur) relative to each other. Michael Stubbs says, ‘Any study which is not dealing with (a) single sentences, (b) contrived by the linguist, (c) out of context, may be called discourse analysis.’
Discourse analysis deals language in use: written text of all kinds and spoken data. It received attention in different disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, anthropology, psychology and sociology. At a time when linguistics was largely concerned with the analysis of single sentences, Zelling Harris published a paper with the title ‘Discourse analysis’ in 1952. Harris was interested in the distribution of linguistic elements in extended texts, and the links between the text and its social situation. Also important in the early years was the emergence of semiotics and the French structuralist approach to the study of narrative. In the 1960s, Dell Hymes provided a sociological perspective with the study of speech in its social setting. The linguistic philosophers such as Austin (1962), Searle (1969) and Grice (1975) were also influential in the study of language as social action, reflected in speech-act theory and the formulation of conversational maxims, alongside the emergence of pragmatics which is the study of meaning in context. British discourse analysis was greatly influenced by M. A. K. Halliday’s functional approach to language, which in turn has connexions with the Prague School of linguists. Halliday’s framework emphasizes the social functions of language and the thematic and informational structure of speech and writing. Also important in Britain were Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) at the University of Birmingham, who developed a model for the description of teacher pupil talk, based on a hierarchy of discourse units. Other similar work has dealt with doctor-patient interaction, service encounters, interviews, debates and business negotiations, as well as monologues. Novel work in the British tradition has also been done on intonation in discourse. The British work has principally followed structural-linguistic criteria, on the basis of the isolation of units, and sets of rules defining well-formed sequences of discourse.
Also relevant to the development of discourse analysis as a whole is the work of text grammarians, working mostly with written language. Text grammarians see texts as language elements strung together in relationships with one another that can be defined. Linguists such as Van Dijk (1972), De Beaugrande (1980), Halliday and Hasan (1976) have made a significant impact in this area. The Prague School of linguists, with their interest in the structuring of information in discourse, has also been influential. Its most important contribution has been to show the links between grammar and discourse. 3.4. Example for discourse analysis. Handout (activity-2). Even if the utterance or sentence are ungrammatical the Discourse Analysis makes us grasp the intended meaning. Example: My natal was in a small town, very close to Riyadh capital of Saudi Arabia. The distance between my town and Riadh 7 miles exactly.The name of this Almasani that means I English factory. It takes its name from the people carrer. In childhood I remember the people live. It was very simple most the people was farmer. The above paragraph is full of grammatical mistakes since by Discourse Analysis of this text we can grasp mostly what are the information the writer wants to communicate. Discourse concerns with communication so Discourse Analysis gives us the interpretation of this communicated commodity. Download 23.15 Kb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling