CC BY
374Case 3- Again working in groups, students invent alternatives to existing manifestations of their own culture. They may come up with ideas such as [3]: (1) instead of shaking hands with people, you might jump three times, and (2) nodding the head could mean "no" instead of "yes." Then, each group prepares a sketch showing the new manifestations and the others must guess what they stand for. Creative students will have no problems with this exercise—and some of their ideas may actually be true of other cultures!
Generally, students have to be actively involved in discovering intercultural information. They must also be given a chance to practice their intercultural knowledge. It is not enough for students to assimilate new information—they need to digest it, feel it, and experience it!
References
1. Bao-he Z. (2010). How to Enhance Cross-cultural Awareness in TEFL. Cross-cultural communication Journal, 6 (2), 100-104.
2. Beach R. (1992). "Experimental and Descriptive Research Methods in Composition," in Methods and Methodology in Composition Research. Ed. Kirsch, G and Patricia A. Sullivan. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois UP, pp. 217-243.
3. Bennett J.M., Bennett, M.J., & Allen W. (2003). Developing intercultural competence in the language classroom. In D. L. Lange, & M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the core (pp. 237270). Greenwich: IAP.
TYPES OF DISCOURSE IN LINGUISTICS Turdiyeva Yu.
Turdiyeva Yulduz - Teacher, DEPARTMENT OF THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, UZBEK STATE UNIVERSITY OF WORLD LANGUAGES, TASHKENT, REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
Abstract: not only is discourse difficult to define, but it is also not easy to make a clear cut division of discourse as such. Therefore, depending on the form linguists distinguish various kinds of communicative products. A type of discourse might be characterized as a class of either written or spoken text, which is frequently casually specified, recognition of which aids its perception, and consequently production of potential response. Keywords: discourse, written and oral discourse, extralinguistic signals, grimaces, gesticulation, expressions.
When the stress is on a symptom aspect the fulfilled function is expression, as a result the discourse type is narrative. Last but not least in this division is argumentative discourse which is characterized by the accent on the signal aspect.
This distinction due to its suitability for written communicative products more than for spoken ones, faced constructive criticism whose accurate observation portrayed that there are more functions performed. Consequently there ought to be more types of discourse, not to mention the fact that these often mix and overlap. Thorough examination of the matter was conducted, thus leading to the emergence of a new, more detailed classification of kinds of spoken texts.
The analysis of oral communicative products was the domain of Steger, who examined features of various situations and in his categorization divided discourse into six types: presentation, message, report, public debate, conversation and interview. The criteria of this division include such factors as presence, or absence of interaction, number of speakers and
their relation to each other (their rights, or as Steger names it 'rank'), flexibility of topic along with selection and attitude of interlocutors towards the subject matter.
However, it is worth mentioning that oral discourse might alter its character, for instance in the case of presenting a lecture when students start asking questions the type changes to interview, or even a conversation. Using this classification it is possible to anticipate the role of partakers as well as goals of particular acts of communication.
The above mentioned typologies do not exhaust the possible division of discourse types, yet, nowadays endeavor to create a classification that would embrace all potential kinds is being made. Also, a shift of interest in this field might be noticed, presently resulting in focus on similarities and differences between written and spoken communication [3].
Apart from obvious differences between speech and writing like the fact that writing includes some medium which keeps record of the conveyed message while speech involves only air, there are certain dissimilarities that are less apparent. Speech develops in time in that the speaker says with speed that is suitable for him, even if it may not be appropriate for the listener and though a request for repetition is possible, it is difficult to imagine a conversation in which every sentence is to be rephrased. Moreover, talking might be spontaneous which results in mistakes, repetition, sometimes less coherent sentences where even grunts, stutters or pauses might be meaningful. The speaker usually knows the listener, or listeners, or he is at least aware of the fact that he is being listened to, which enables him to adjust the register. As interlocutors are most often in face-to-face encounters (unless using a phone) they take advantage of extralinguistic signals as grimaces, gesticulation, expressions such as 'here', 'now', or 'this' are used. Employment of nonsense vocabulary, slang and contracted forms (we're, you've) is another feature of oral discourse. Among other significant features of speech there are rhythm, intonation, speed of uttering and, what is more important, inability to conceal mistakes made while speaking [1].
In contrast, writing develops in space in that it needs a means to carry the information. The author of the text does not often know who is going to read the text, as a result he cannot adjust to readers' specific expectations. The writer is frequently able to consider the content of his work for almost unlimited period of time which makes it more coherent, having complex syntax. What is more, the reader might not instantly respond to the text, ask for clarification, hence neat message organization, division to paragraphs, layout are of vital importance to make comprehension easier. Additionally, owing to the lack of context expressions such as 'now' or 'here' are omitted, since they would be ambiguous as texts might be read at different times and places. One other feature typical of writing, but never of oral discourse, is the organization of tables, formulas [2].
Naturally, this division into two ways of producing discourse is quite straightforward, yet, it is possible to combine the two like, for example, in the case of a lesson, when a teacher explains something writing on the blackboard, or when a speaker prepares detailed notes to be read out during his speech. Moreover, some of the foregoing features are not so explicit in the event of sophisticated, formal speech or a friendly letter.
References
1. Gee J.P. 2001. An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Routledge.
2. McCarthy M. 1991. Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: CUP.
3. Renkema J. 2004. Introduction to discourse studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing.
