Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 10:1 (1987) ► pp.56–75

Discourse analysis models for second language teaching

| University of Sydney

The categories of the functional-notional syllabus are inadequate because, like the speech act theory on which they are based, they recognize only the social function of language and not its discourse function. A further difficulty is that illocutionary acts do not map onto single utterances as this approach to syllabus design appears to assume. Communicative acts in interactional discourse function both as illocutionary acts (they have an intentional effect on another participant) and as interactional acts (they have a role in structuring the discourse of the interaction). This paper discusses attempts by various discourse analysts to model this fact in three different ways: (1) to conflate both types of function into a single analysis (John Dore), (2) to code all utterances for both types of function keeping the two sets of analysis separate (Willis Edmonson) and (3) to code the two types of function in a manner which relates them to each other in a systematic manner (Gordon Wells, Jim Martin). Problems with each solution are discussed, but the need for language materials writers to take a broader view of language function is stressed.

Published online: 1 January 1987
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.10.1.04per
References
Abbs, B. and I. Freebaim
(1979a) Building strategies. London, Longman.Google Scholar
Abbs, B. and I. Freebairn
(1979b) Building strategies. Teachers Book. London, Longman.Google Scholar
Berry, M.
(1985) Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery (eds.) Studies in discourse analysis. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul: 120–145.Google Scholar
Dore, J.
(1977) Children’s illocutionary acts. In R.O. Freedle (ed.) Discourse production and comprehension. Norwood, N.J., Ablex Publishing Corporation: 227–244.Google Scholar
Edmonson, W.
(1981) Spoken discourse: a model for analysis. London, Longman.Google Scholar
Fletcher, P. and M. Garman
(1979) Language acquisition. Cambridge, C.U.P.Google Scholar
Hasan, R.
(1978) Text in the systemic-functional model. In W.U. Dressier (ed.) Current trends in textlinguistics. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter: 228–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E.M.
(1983) Psycholinguistics: a second language perspective. Rowley, Mass., Newbury House.Google Scholar
Martin, J.R.
(1981) How many speech acts? University of East Anglla Papers in Linguistics 14–15: 52–77.Google Scholar
(1985) Process and text: two aspects of human semiosis. In J.D. Benson and W.S. Greaves (eds.) Systemic perspectives on discourse. Norwood, N.J., Ablex: 248–274.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50,4:696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A. and H. Sacks
(1973) Opening up closings. Scmiotica 8,4:289–327.Google Scholar
Searle, J.R.
(1975) A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson (ed.) Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science VII: language, mind and knowledge. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Van Ek, J.A.
(1976) The threshold level for modern language learning in school. London, Longman.Google Scholar
Wells, G.
(1975) Coding manual for the description of child speech. Bristol, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
(1981) Learning through interaction: the study of language development. Cambridge, C.U.P. DOI logoGoogle Scholar