The teaching plan of the practical lesson №1

The teaching plan of the practical lesson №1

№ Theme	Getting acquainted with discourse analysis.
Groups
Date

Time:80 minutes	The number of students:18-22
Objectives: a) Educational goals: 1. To introduce students to the varied field of discourse analysis 2. Toexamine several approaches that take advantage of the insights discourse analysis can offer, such as the ethnography of communication, pragmatics, conversation analysis or interactional sociolinguistics.	b) Upbringing goals: 1. To form a kind of sense of interest in learning discourse analysis. 2. To get them interested in further development of discourse analysis. 3. To teach them about the role of discourse analysis in our life, in their studies.
c) Developing goals: To develop their all skills through reading and speaking; To develop their horizon and artistic skills, form and develop their critical thinking;	Predicate the results of teaching activity 1. They will be thoroughly informed about discourse analysis. 2. They will be able to get more information about discourse analysis doing analysis of texts. 3. They will remember all new terms and word combinations and use them in their speech;
The method and technology of teaching	Brainstorming, clustering, giving definitions, discussion, and retelling.
Assessment	12 points (reading, speaking, listening, writing and analyzing)
Info-resources and technical equipment	Pictures, board, worksheets.
Types of the lesson	Practical; discussion seminar
The form of teaching	pair work, individual work, group work
Homework:	Case study. Retell the theme, analyzing the texts.

2. The technological schedule of the practical lesson

T/r	Stages of the lesson	Time management	The process of the lesson		Methods	Technical equipment
1.	Introductory part	10 min	Introductory part; Greeting; Checking home task; Marking the students; To speak about current events; To divide the class into 3 groups;		Instructions	Posters
2.	Pre-stage	min	Warm-up activity with students, make some examples and ask some questions according the topic. To give then clear instructions to do the activities;		To answer the questions	Didactic materials
3.	While - stage	45 min	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).		Discussion, Brain-storming	Text materials Presentation
4.	Post-stage	10 min	4.1. Fortification; Revision all the process of the lesson the topic by asking questions and making different kinds of clusters in small groups and discuss them.		Making a cluster	Board Posters Exercise-book
5.	Conclusion	5 min	5.1. Marking(Stimulation) 5.2. Homework; Retell the text;		Individual

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.


3.2.Defining discourse analysis (activity -1)

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.’
3.3. Historical view of 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.
American discourse analysis has been dominated by work within the ethnomethodological tradition, which emphasizes the research method of close observation of groups of people communicating in natural settings. It examines types of speech event such as storytelling, greeting rituals and verbal duels in different cultural and social settings. What is often called conversation analysis within the American tradition can also be included under the general heading of discourse analysis. In conversational analysis, the emphasis is not upon building structural models but on the close observation of the behaviour of participants in talk and on patterns which recur over a wide range of natural data. The work of Goffman (1976; 1979), and Sacks Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) is important in the study of conversational norms, turn-taking, and other aspects of spoken interaction. Alongside the conversation analysts, working within the sociolinguistic tradition, Labov’s investigations of oral storytelling have also contributed to a long history of interest in narrative discourse. The American work has produced a large number of descriptions of discourse types as well as insights into the social constraints of politeness and face-preserving phenomena in talk, overlapping with British work in pragmatics.

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.