CC BY
68ФИЛОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ
THE BASIC PECULARITIES OF DISCOURSE COMPETENCE IN RAISING LANGUAGE LEARNERS' COMMUNICATIVE SKILLS
Gulyamova M.&
Gulyamova Mavluda Hamitovna - Doctor of Philosophy on Pedagogy, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AS INTEGRATED COURSE № 1, UZBEKISTAN STATE WORLD LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY, TASHKENT, REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
Abstract: the article discusses discourse and its functions in language learning methodology. The author of the article defines spoken and written types of discourse and it's implementation to practice.
Keywords: discourse, tendencies, completion, conceptualization, cognitive, dominanat discourse, discourse community, discourse completion.
At present days the term "discourse" has become one of the modern and up date terminology in teaching process. But the term is used differently without being defined in the learning process. Moreover, the modern tendencies in language learning requires complex or integrated analysis in text interpretation and communication. First of all, we need to define the word "discourse" and what it means. According to Macmillan English dictionary "discourse" is a long and serious speech or piece of writing on a particular subject, linguistics written or spoken language, especially when it is studied in order to understand how people use language [1: p. 393]. So, by the term discourse we may understand a piece of writing or speech which is used in context in order to understand clearly. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the term "discourse" started to use in different spheres such as psychology, linguistics, semiotics, sociology and anthropology. In recent years, it is widely used in humanities, social sciences, education, cognitive psychology, international relations, cultural studies, communication studies and translation studies. At first Zellig Harris published a paper with the title Discourse analyses. Because he was interested in different texts, its use in social and communicative situation and links between texts. Later in the 1960s D. Hymes, Austin (1962), Searle (1969) and Grice (1975) were worked on this disciplines [2: p. 5].
In 1970s critical discourse analysis introduced in a seminar book by Roger Fowler, Gunther Kress, Bob Hodge and Tony Trew and later developed by Norman Fairclough (1989) in the UK, Ruth Wodak (1989) in Austria and Teun A. van Dijk (1993) in the Netherlands. Thus, we can see different explanations and meanings of discourse. For example: Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics defines as a following: discourse n a general term for examples of language use, i.e. language which has been produced as the result of an act of communication. Whereas grammar refers to the rules a language uses to form grammatical units such as clause, phrase, and sentence, discourse normally refers to larger units of language such as paragraphs, conversations, and interviews. Sometimes the study of both written and spoken discourse is known as discourse analysis; some researchers however use discourse analysis to refer to the study of spoken discourse and text linguistics to refer to the study of written discourse. In postmodernism and critical discourse analysis, discourse is used to indicate not only any kind of talk but also the meanings and values embedded in talk. In this sense, a dominant discourse refers to an institutionalized way of thinking and talking about things. discourse accent n (in writing) those characteristics of writing produced by non-native writers_which make it different from the writing of native writers. For example,_non-native patterns of rhetorical organization in an essay or non-native use_of cohesive devices, topics, and paragraph organization may contribute to_a writer's discourse accent. discourse analysis n the study of how sentences in spoken and written language form larger meaningful units such as paragraphs, conversations, interviews, etc. For example, discourse analysis deals with: a how the choice of articles, pronouns, and tenses affects the structure of the discourse (see address forms, cohesion) b the relationship between utterances in a
discourse (see adjacency pairs, coherence) c the moves made by speakers to introduce a new topic, change the topic, or assert a higher role relationship to the other participants discourse. Analysis of spoken discourse is sometimes called conversational analysis. Some linguists use the term text linguistics for the study of written discourse. Another focus of discourse analysis is the discourse used in the classroom. Such analyses can be useful in finding out about the effectiveness of teaching methods and the types of teacher-student interactions. Discourse community n a group of people involved in a particular disciplinary or professional area_(e.g. teachers, linguists, doctors, engineers) who have therefore developed_means and conventions for doing so. The type of discourse used by a discourse community is known as a genre. The concept of discourse community.
thus seeks to explain how particular rhetorical features of texts express the values, purposes, and understandings of particular groups and mark membership of such groups. Discourse completion test n a type of questionnaire that presents a sociolinguistic description of a situation followed by part of a discourse designed to elicit a specific speech act. The responses elicited can then be analyzed as speech act realizations of the desired type. For example, a discourse completion test designed to elicit some kind of apology, might produce responses. Discourse marker n a class of expressions consisting of words (however, still), phrases (as a matter of fact) or clauses (to make myself clear) that serve to monitor and organize ongoing discourse. Discourse markers serve a variety of functions in spoken discourse, including indicating topic boundaries (so, right), openings (well then), closure or pre-closure (so) as well as reflecting the ongoing interaction between speaker and hearer (you know, you see, I mean) [3]. Jaworski and Coupland mentioned that "....discourse is an inescapably concept for understanding society and human responses to it, as well as understanding language itself'.[4:p 8] By learning discourse analyses students gain an advanced competences of the concept in context at the same time they practice their skills as well as define language in context and language in use. It helps them to develop Communicative competence.
Cook (1989) said discourse is "a stretch of language perceived to be meaningful unified and purposive" in some way". According to Nunan (1993) discourse means "a stretch of language consisting of several sentences which are perceived as related in some way. Kress (1985) explains discourse as "Systematically organized sets of statements which give expression to the meanings and values of and institution. Parker (1992) defines discourse as "interrelated set of texts, and the practice of their production. Slembrouck (2005) provides a broad definition that the term discourse analysis refers mainly to the linguistic analysis of naturally occurring connected speech or written discourse [5]. As it is known discourse analyses are divided into 2 parts: Spoken discourse (utterances) and Written discourse (in writing). Spoken discourse includes conversations, dialogues, advertisements, newspapers, leaflets, magazines, presentations, discussions, role plays and others. It might be prepared or unprepared speech. Written discourse includes formal and informal texts, recipes, essays, dialogues, instructions, timetables and scientific articles. We use two main features to understand discourse:
> Cohesion (to link ideas linguistically)
> Coherence ( to link the meaning of sentences or utterances)
For example:
A: It is raining outside.
B: I'll take my umbrella.
In this dialogue there is no grammatical and lexical link, but according to A, B understands easily and react. That apart, discourse competence was added to the theory of communicative competence by Canale, and he says that it is the ability to produce and interpret language beyond the sentence level. There is no better reason to give for discussing grammatical competence before the others than to say that it is the „basic" of all the components. It is not basic in the sense that it is always the first to be learned, otherwise the argument about which of the competencies is to be learned or taught first would surface. Because such argument is not consequential to this work, it has been avoided. So the ordering of these competencies in the present section should not be associated with how important they are. In the words of J. Richards and R. Schmidt, discourse competence .concerns the mastery of how to combine grammatical forms and meanings to
43
achieve unified spoken and written texts in different genres. By genres, is meant, the type of text for example, oral and written narrative, an argumentative essay, a scientific report, a business letter, etc. While grammatical competence is the knowledge of codes, discourse competence concerns itself with combining these grammatical structures to achieve meaning, cohesion and coherence in both written and oral discourse. But it has to be remarked here that the conditions of oral discourse is quite dissimilar from those of written discourse. The chief reason is that oral discourse, for example, is tied to the moment (and other factors) of its production. This is what Emile Benveniste calls the „instance of discourse". This distinction is not of interest here. However, it remains at the centre of any conceptualization of discourse competence. Celce-Murcia argues that Discourse competence refers to the selection, sequencing, and arrangement of words, structures, and utterances to achieve a unified spoken message. This is where the top-down communicative intent and sociocultural knowledge intersect with the lexical resources to express messages and attitudes and to create coherent [oral and written] texts. What is obvious in the definitions above is that discourse competence seeks to achieve coherence in discourse by the proper ordering of the structures of the language. This knowledge is relevant, without which communication may break down. Celce-Murcia et al. discuss several sub-areas of discourse competence which include:
a) cohesion: conventions regarding the use of reference, lexical chains, conjunction, etc;
b) deixis: those features of language which refer directly to the personal, temporal or locational characteristics of the situation within which an utterance takes place, whose meaning is thus relative to that situation (Crystal); this Adrian Akmajian et al. classify into two: indexicals and demonstratives;
c) coherence: expressing intent through appropriate content schema and conventionally recognized means; and d) generic structure: formal schemata that allow the user to identify an oral discourse segment according to their genres (Celce-Murcia).
Basically, you take part in a conversation, a discussion or an interview you are required to react immediately, but at least you have the chance to ask a speaker to repeat or explain what you have not understood._
Useful key words:
• Could you please repeat that?
• Sorry I don't understand the word.
• What does it mean?
• Say it again.
• Can you spell that for me, please?
• Excuse me, can you say that again?
• Could you clarify?
• Can you identify?
• What do you mean by that?_
Situation Features
talk, lecture, speech - purpose: educating or convincing people; interactive in a - formal language; limited way - rhetorical devices;
-sometimes visuals as a support.
telephone - listening and talking without seeing the other
conversation person;
-often unprepared.
discussion, debate - argumentative language; -rhetoric devices. - atmosphere not always friendly.
conversation - informal, colloquial language;
- usually friendly atmosphere;
- containing idioms;
- often indirect for reasons of politeness.
It is obvious that discourse competence in achieving all of the above makes oral and written discourse coherent and cohesive - and this is needed for understanding to take place.
References
1. Macmillan Essential dictionary for learners of English. (2007) Macmillan publishers limited. P. 860.
2. McCarthy M., 1991. Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge Language teaching library. Cambridge University Press. P. 213.
3. Richards Jack C. and Schmidt Richard, 2010. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Fourth edition. Pearson Education Limited. P. 643.
4. Jaworski A. and CouplandN., 1999. The Discourse Reader London: Routledge. P. 37.
5. [Electronic Resource]. URL: https:// www.ukessays.com/essays/english-language/discourse-and-discourse-analyses-english-language-essay.php/ (date of access: 12.02.2020).
