淺析話語分析與口語教學的關系

潘春

（魯迅美術學院大連校區，遼寧大連 116650）

淺析話語分析與口語教學的關系

潘春

（魯迅美術學院大連校區，遼寧大連 116650）

自上世紀七十年代以來，隨著交際語言教學被廣泛的接受與應用，越來越多的學者開始關注話語分析與語言教學的關系。本文首先對話語分析的定義進行了歸納和總結，之后分析了話語分析與語言教學及話語分析與口語語言教學的關系。最后通過對典型案例的分析，說明就口語課堂教學來說，對語言和語境的關系的分析是不可或缺的一個重要因素。

交際語言教學；話語分析；口語語言教學；語境

1 Definition of discourse analysis 話語分析定義

In general, according Jaworski and Coupland(2006), the term of discourse analysis can be defined as “the analysis of language in use. As such, it cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independent of the purposes or functions which these forms are designed to serve in human affairs.”

2 The relationship between discourse analysis and language teaching話語分析同語言教學的關系

Since 1970s, with widely range of using communicative approach in the language teaching classroom, an increasing number of researchers and linguistics focus their concentration on study of the relationship between language teaching and discourse analysis. As Olshtain ＆Murcia (2001) said,“ it would be ill-advised to teach language via the communicative approach without relying heavily on discourse analysis.” In other words, the study of discourse analysis should be conduct in language teaching.

The studies on the relationship between discourse analysis and language teaching are primary mainly focus on three ways, discourse analysis and written language teaching (McCarthy, 1991), discourse analysis and spoken language teaching(McCarthy 1991, Coulthard 1985, Cook 1989,Olshtain ＆ Murcia, 2001), discourse analysis and syllabus design (Crombie 1985, Cook 1989). The relationship between discourse analysis and spoken language teaching will be discussed in detail as follows.

The relationship between discourse analysis and spoken language teaching

話語分析同口語語言教學的關系

According to McCarthy (1991), the patterns of spoken discourse analysis can be divided into seven categories, they are, “adjacency pairs”,“exchanges”, “turn-taking”, “transactions and topics”, “interactional and transactional talk”,“stories, anecdotes and jokes”, “speech and grammar”, and “other spoken discourse type”.

According to Cook (1989), adjacency pair is defined as two kinds of turn in real conversation which particularly happen together. Adjacency pair occurs “when one speaker makes a particular kind of response very likely.”

The response of adjacency pair can be sort into two categories, that is preferred response (accept a request) and dispreferred response (refuse a request).The example of such response is illustrated as follows (Cook, 1989).

“Offer”

Accept the offer (preferred)

Refuse the offer (dipreffered)

Dispreferred response always features with some symbols such as, a little silence, some preface words or sentences such as “well”, appreciation such as “thank you very much,…” or account,justification and explanation of the response” (Cook,1989).

The theory of adjacency pair can be utilized as a method to test whether the speaking activity designed in the classroom is in a meaningful contexts.To illustrate,

“Teacher: What is this?

Students: This is a book.

Teacher: Good! Where is the book?

Students: It is on the table.” (Claire, 1981)

This is a classical classroom conversation in the traditional second language teaching classroom. From the grammatical point of view, no mistake can be found in these sentences. However, the problem is it is not a natural conversation that will happen in the real life. It can be imagine that the situation of this conversation in that classroom is, there is a book on the table, everyone can see the book, and the teacher just pointing at the book and asking the questions. From adjacency pair aspect, in this context, the responses in this utterance will not happen in the real life.

Generally the of question such as “what is this?” is require for information, such as “I don’t know” or “ this is the textbook of last year”,or require for term“what is this? ---this is a physical book based on the theory of computer science.” The response on such question can also be a surprise, “what is this” said while pointing to the book where a big insect lying on it. Or even can have dispreferred response on this question.However, If the students use “this is book” to answer question “what it is” in the same situation in real life, the listener will become confused.Because in real situation, everyone knows that is a book therefore, it is no real meaning to answer the question like “this is a book”. The reason the students answer in this way is to satisfy the teacher,but not give the answer with respect to assumption of the question. On the other hand, the purpose of teacher who asked this question is to test whether the students grasp grammatical rule. All the exercise and activity designed in this conversation is from grammatical aspect, but not communicative view. Therefore, this conversation will not apply in the real situation. This kind of teaching will lead the students incapable to use the language for communication in the real life. Therefore, if the affection of adjacency pair could be considered when designing a syllabus or conversational activities in the language teaching, the utterance used in language classroom will become more natural and communicative. However, except for adjacency pairs,there are also many other spoken discourse aspect which may contribute to build a communicative language teaching. Therefore, they all need to be considered when designing a communicative language teaching.

3 Conclusion結論

In conclusion, from the analysis between adjacency pair and spoken language teaching, it can be seen that the grammatical and syntax rules is not enough for spoken language teaching. In traditional classroom, all the activities and practice were related to grammar. However, the knowledge of grammar can not really help students to use language communicate in real situation. Therefore, for achieving a communicative language teaching, the relationship between language and contexts must be take into account. From this point of view the relevance between discourse analysis and spoken language teaching should be studied when designing a communicative language teaching. This kind of study can not only analyze whether there is a commutative activity in the classroom. but also can used as a rationale to design a communicative language teaching syllabus.

[1]Claire, K. (1981) Discourse Analysis and Second Language Teaching. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

[2]Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[3]Coulthard, M. (1985) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis(New Edition). London: Longman.

[4]McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[5]Olshtain, E. and Murcia, M. Discourse Analysis and Language Teaching in Schiffrin.

[6]Adam Jaworski & Nikolas Coupland (2006) The discourse reader（2nd ed.）. New York: Routledge.

H315

A

1003-2177（2017）08-0029-03

潘春（1979—），女，遼寧盤錦人，研究生，講師，研究方向：應用語言學-英語教學。