IN GOD WE TRUST

DISCOURDE-BASED APPROACHES

A New Framework for Second Language Teaching and Learning

Marianne Celce-Murcia University of California ,Los Angeles Elite Olshtain Tel Aviv University

PURPOSE/FUNCTION

Enabling learners to become competent and efficient users of a new language by providing a framework which focuses on meaning and real communication and also integrates the recent trend on focus on form within communicative language teaching

What is discourse?

An instance of spoken or written language that has describable relationships of form and meaning that relate coherently to an external communicative function or purpose and a given audience/interlocutor. Furthermore the external function or purpose can only be determined if one takes into account the context and participant (i.e., all the relevant situational, social and cultural factors) in which the piece of discourse occurs.

)Marianne Celce-murcia & Elite Olshtain,2000,p.4(

GOALS OF THE STUDDY

1. Show how discourse–based approaches have developed from to earlier strands of research ; namely work in discourse analysis and in communicative approaches to language teaching and learning.

2. Show how a number of so-called controversies can be usefully re-envisioned and resolved with reference to discourse based approaches .

3.Argue that discourse–based approaches impact all

aspects of language instruction (teaching materials ,course design and content ,teaching procedures ,assessment of learner achievement ,etc.).

HOW DISCURSE-BASED APPROCHES FIT WITHIN CURRENT MEYHODOLOGY

1.Work in discourse analysis

2.Work in communicative approaches to language learning and language teaching

Work in discourse analysis

As a reaction to:

Chomsky’s Sentence-level paradigm)rule-governed creativity (

Innate mechanism of language acquisition

Hymes’s Communicative competence(1967,1972) Halliday&Hasan (1976,1989)Social and functional rules of language

MODES OF HUMAN COMMUNICATION

Oral data (Schegloff,Ochs&Thompson ,1996)

Written text

) Swales,19990;Hoey,1991 (

Gestural

Non-verbal

APPROACHES TO DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Genre analysis

Conversation analysisRhetorical structure theoryCohesion analysisCritical discourse analysis

Work in communicative approaches to language teaching and learning

1.Notional-Functional approach

2 .Classical Immersion Education

Notional-Functional approach

Krashen’ Notional-Functional approach as a reaction to the “Building Block” methods ( G-T & A-L Methods)

Notions

Functions (social functions)

INADEQUCY OF COMMUNICATINVE METHODOLOGY & IMMERSION EDUCATION

Content-basedFluent but inaccurate learners

)Harley,1989;Larsen-Freeman&Lonh,1991(

Communicative competence

Hymes(1967,1972)Canale(1983)

Communicative competence as an integrated whole

Linguistic competence (CALP)Sociocultural competence

Discourse competence

Strategic competence

Discourse competence as core competence

Sociocltural competence( Top-down)Linguistic competence (Bottom-up)Strategic competence

DISCOURSE-BASED APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY

Methodology(e.g,content-based & immersion)Language teacher trainingMaterials developmentSyllabus designSecond language acquisition researchClassroom researchLanguage assessment

IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT IN LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY : CURRNT CONTROVRSIES

Fluency and accuracy Comprehensible input & Comprehensible output

Implicit and Explicit learning/Teaching

Top-down and Bottom-up processing

Cognitive and Socio-cultural Approaches to Language pedagogy

Authentic and Adapted materials

Fluency and Accuracy

Immersion Education programs Building-block Approaches

Comprehensible input & Comprehensible output

Comprehensible input Krashen(1998)

Comprehensible outputComprehensible output

Swain(1985)

Discourse as a complementary context for comprehension, production & acquisition

) Celce-murcia,1995(

Implicit and Explicit learning/Teaching

Implicit for younger & low proficiency learners)Cele-murcia,1985(

Explicit for older and more advanced learners)Lightbown&Spada,1999;Larsen-Freeman&Long

Incorporation of both at discourse level according to learners’ preference & need

Top-down and Bottom-up processing

Top-downContextual factors .e.g.,sociocultural knowledge & task

assessment for producing and interpreting discourse

Bottom-up processingproductive or interpretive choices e.g., word recognition, part of speech recognition, word comprehension for meaning

Discourse processing is simultaneously T-D & B-U Grabe(1991)

Cognitive & Sociocultural Approaches to Language pedagogy

Cognitive Approaches to writing

Background readingOutlining

Careful rhetorical organization)Flower,1972;Olson,1977;Ong,1982

Sociocultural Approaches to writing

Oral brainstormingNegotiation of audience

John(1997)Oral and written input prior to writingBoth Top-down & Bottom-up

Authentic and Adapted Materials

Authentic:Not generated for purposes of language teaching but for other communicative purposes

Authentic materials

Authentic materials for all age groups & different level of language proficiency Simplified authentic materials for beginners Unsimplified Authentic materials for advanced learners

Imitation Authentic Materials

Materials too complex for lower proficiency learners

Start with some authentic discourse then make adaptations that not change the overall meaning or the organization of message conveyed but make it more accessible to learners to use & learn it

IMPLEMENTATION OF DISCOURAE-BASED APPROACHES AND SUPPORT FOR THE AUTHORES’ POSITION

IMPLEMENTATIONFocus on meaning& real communication

)Receptive & productive skills(

Core language curriculum:

Linguistics functionsSocicultural functionsPragmatics functions

Instructed and Natural settings:

School

Workplace

Meaningful communication

Focus on meaning and real communication

Providing opportunities for both natural exposure to the language and meaningful use of language for the learners of all range of age & level of knowledge

Core language curriculum:

Linguistics,sociocultural & pragmatics

Discourse-based approaches to curriculum design in accordance with current language pedagogy:

Focus on Form)Doughy&Williams,1998(

Focus on Pragmatics)Kasper&Blum-kulka,1993(

Instructed setting:Extensive courses:

School

WorkplaceIntensive courses:

One-shot courses

Support for focus on :

Focus on Form

Long(1991)

Focus on Pragmatics)Kasper&Blum-Kulka,1993(

Integration of Top-down and Bottom up processing

Support for Focus on Form

Use of Narrative to teach formExposure to authentic language with focus on form and explicit learning & explicit pedagogy in contextualized discourse can facilitate acquisition of elusive forms

Explicit teaching and pedagogyDekeyser(1995)

Support for Focus on Pragmatics

Acquisitional direction:

Shift from pragmatics to grammar according to the age & level of knowledge of the learners

Support for Integration of Top-down and Bottom-up processing

e.g., reading an expository textTop-downContext is clearBottom-upNo clue to the context

DISCOURSE-BASED APPROAHES TO READINGText-pragmatics:

Interactional relationship between reader and writer

Text-semantics:

Information structure within the text

Discourse-based approach to curriculum designDiscourse-oriented curriculum:

ContextText types

Communicative goals

e.g., Threshold level in multilingual context

CONCLUSIONS/FURTHER DIRECYIONS

1.Adaptingcurriculum(materials,cortent,procedure,assseement)

to the communicative needs of the learners, which involves making discourse analysis an integral part of needs assessment

2.Designing programs and using discourse-based materials that emphasize skills and the language that the learners truly

need in the target language .

3.Defining realistic and explicit expectations regarding the levels of ability and fluency learners should achieve (as opposed to some abstract level of language proficiency,e.g., a specific score on the TOEFL); this involves making the

discourse analysis an integral part of language testing .

AREA FOR FURTHER RESAERCH1.How best can teachers be trained or retrained implement a

discourse-based approach? How much discourse analysis do they need? What kind ?What happens to them in the process

of change?

2.How can careful analysis of classroom language or pair/group work in progress enhance our understanding of the

teaching/learning process?

3 .Are learners better able to transfer what they learn in the classroom to the real world using discourse-based approaches? Do they take better responsibility for their own

kerning?

4 .Do discourse-based approaches lead to better language ability and / or increased motivation to use the language?