Maket 2011-2:Layout 1.qxd


Discourse Approach to Teaching Language and 

Communication Skills

Gohar Hovsepyan
Yerevan State University

A number of scholars have emphasized the importance of using findings of studieson the performance of speech acts in real-life conversations for teaching lan-
guages and communicative competence.  Acts of communication such as giving advice
or directives involve much more than the performance of a single speech act. The rele-
vance of basing functional language teaching on the findings of discourse analyses has
been attested by a number of publications (Cook 1989; McCarthy 1998; McCarthy and
Carter 1994).  McCarthy and Carter (1995) argue for a discourse approach to teaching
grammar, and Dornyei and Thurrell (1994) believe a systematic approach to teaching
conversational skills based on knowledge of how conversations are structured can take
learners a long way towards second language acquisition.  Other studies compare natu-
rally occurring discourse with the language taught in textbooks. For example, Pearson
(1986) examines agreeing and disagreeing, while Scotton and Bernsten (1988) analyze
the language of direction-giving. Both authors draw attention to a discrepancy between
the language of real-life discourse and the language of textbooks. Previous studies have
therefore shown that a great deal can be learned from naturally occurring discourse for dif-
ferent areas of language teaching, ranging from grammar and vocabulary to pragmatic and
sociolinguistic competence.

Pragmatic or functional uses of language, such as thanking, making suggestions,
refusing, agreeing, asking for information, are important in many different types of inter-
actions.  Performing speech acts is a fairly complex phenomenon, which involves socio-
cultural knowledge about when to perform a speech act and which one to choose as
appropriate in a given circumstance. The sociolinguistic knowledge regarding the actual
linguistic realization of each speech act appropriate to the particular situation (Cohen
1996) is also an important component of the speech act. However, this complexity has
not always been recognized in the teaching of speech acts or functions. There has fre-
quently been an overly simplistic tendency to equate speech acts with certain linguistic
formulae (McCarthy 1998:19), for instance to teach learners how to give advice, they
may receive a list of phrases such as:  

You should. . .
Why don’t you. . .?
If I were you I’d. . .
You ought to. . .

Such lists tend to obscure the fact that not all these phrases may be appropriate in
every situation, depending on such factors as the precise nature of the interaction and
the relationship between the speakers (e.g. status and social distance). A further com-

Armenian Folia AnglistikaMethodology

111



plication may arise if there are sociocultural differences between the culture of the
target language and the learner’s culture regarding the type of speech act.  Cohen
(1996) remarks that in one culture a speech act such as thanking might be appropri-
ate at the end of a meal, whereas in another culture the same situation would call for
an apology. 

Hymes argues that the study of language must concern itself with describing and ana-
lyzing the ability of the native speakers to use language for communication in real situ-
ations (communicative competence) rather than limiting itself to describing the potential
ability of the ideal speaker to produce grammatically correct sentences (linguistic com-
petence). Speakers of a language in particular communities are able to communicate with
each other in a manner which is not only correct but also appropriate to the sociocultural
context (Hymes 1989).

Another problem is that the teaching of speech acts has often focused on lists of
phrases in isolation from any discourse context. Performing speech acts, however, usual-
ly involves more than such one-line contributions. As Cohen (1996) points out, several
stages or “semantic formulas”, as he calls them, are often involved, for example, for the
act of apologizing: acknowledging responsibility, offering repair, giving an explanation
or excuse. In addition, study of real-life conversations shows that performing speech acts
is an intrinsically interactive phenomenon. After all, “doing” things like giving advice or
making a request usually involves at least some kind of response from an addressee
(advice may be either accepted or rejected), and usually a longer exchange. Conversation
analysts have identified such minimal exchanges, or “adjacency pairs” (such as invite—
accept/refuse), as the basic unit of interaction in talk (Levinson 1983: 284–370).
Research in conversation analysis has also demonstrated that the function of any utter-
ance is dependent on its sequential placement in talk-in-interaction. Sacks (1987) and
Schegloff (1984, 1988) show how the analysis of a speech act in isolation can lead to a
completely different interpretation than that demonstrably arrived at by the participants
in a conversation.

Hence, speech acts should be seen not as isolated phenomena, but as unfolding in dis-
course. Studying naturally occurring conversation can reveal how such acts or commu-
nicative functions are performed within longer stretches of discourse.

Insights gathered from the analysis of speech acts performed in naturally occurring
spoken discourse have important implications for the teaching of functional language.
For instance, various studies have indicated, that the performance of direct speech acts
by means of performatives seems to be relatively unusual, with their use often limited to
very specific communicative contexts and functions: for clarification, as framing devices
to signal discourse goals, and as argumentative devices (Koester 2000). Clearly it is
important for learners to be aware of these restrictions on the use of performatives: their
incorrect use can have the unintended effect of the speaker sounding too direct or even
rude. For example, Thomas (1984) shows that the inappropriate use of performatives can
result in cross-cultural “pragmatic failure”. Hence, it is important for learners to be able
to correctly understand and use direct speech acts, and not take them at face value, with-
out looking at the whole stretch of discourse. Performing communicative acts, such as

Armenian Folia Anglistika Methodology

112



giving advice or instructions, is an interactive endeavor, and different speech acts gener-
ate different discourse patterns and linguistic choices. 

The above approach proceeds with the assumption that it is possible to teach prag-
matic competence, however, mere exposure to language in natural contexts is not
enough. This assumption is supported by a number of studies cited in Cohen (1996),
showing that formal instruction can improve the ability to perform speech acts.  In teach-
ing speech acts, it is important to take into account both micro and macro levels of dis-
course. At the micro-level, learners need to learn appropriate responses for different types
of initiating utterances. To a large extent, this is already part of current teaching practice,
for example through “mini-dialogue” practice. What the analysis of naturally occurring
conversation can contribute is a more accurate picture of the types of appropriate
responses depending on the speech act, such as advice, instructions, offers. For instance,
evaluation is usually a component of advice responses (e.g. that’s a good idea), but not
of responses to directives.

At the macro discourse level, learners need an opportunity to practice the discourse
patterns of different types of conversations, including how to open and close conversa-
tions. One important aspect of pragmatic competence in this connection is the ability to
make discourse frames explicit: to signal (e.g. through meta-statements such as This is
only a suggestion, I was kidding, This is a request) what type of discourse one wishes to
engage in.

Taking a discourse approach to teaching functions means that the speech acts to
be taught should be generated from discourse types (e.g. making arrangements, giv-
ing instructions, service encounters), rather than occurring as separate elements in
the syllabus (Burns and Joyce 1997; McCarthy and Carter 1994). The discourse or
text types to be included in the syllabus depend of course on the aims of the course:
a conversation course will require different discourse types than a course in legal
English. One attempt to incorporate a discourse element into the syllabus is
described in the learning objectives for the recently revised European Language
Certificates (Teichmann and Kiefer 1998). One of the specified learning objectives
is the ability to engage in the production of certain discourse types, called “scenar-
ios”, such as favor-seeking, narrating, etc. These scenarios integrate discourse struc-
ture with functions, strategies and lexical and grammatical features of a particular
communicative setting. 

There are various other options to use the insights gained from naturally occurring
talk in instruction.  Recordings and transcripts of actual conversations can be used for lis-
tening practice.  Instructors can use the data to devise various other classroom tasks pro-
moting communication skills. One well-known communicative activity which can be
used to sensitize learners to the fact that conversations have structures and phases is an
unjumbling task, where learners rearrange the parts of a conversation into the right order
(either the transcript of a real-life conversation or a dialogue modelled on such a conver-
sation can be used). In order to develop learners’ productive ability in this area, role play
activities can be devised: for example, learners can develop conversations from skeletons
based on the different phases of the discourse.

Armenian Folia AnglistikaMethodology

113



Sometimes minor adjustments to current teaching practice may be necessary. For
example, learning how to paraphrase and check information is a skill which is common-
ly taught. What may be a new insight from discourse analysis is, for example, the impor-
tance of checking and clarifying through using “formulas” with performatives. One of
the restricted uses of performatives  aims at checking and clarifying (e.g. what I mean is.
. ., so you’re saying. . .).  Learners could be taught the use of such devices specifically
for the skill of paraphrasing and checking understanding; and this skill can be practiced
as a component of instructional discourse.

In teaching communicative functions, it is important to move away from simply
teaching lists of phrases. In addition to being able to cope with the discourse dimension
of speech acts, learners need to develop awareness of the differences between various
realizations of the same speech act; for example, between explicit performatives and
more indirect ways of communicating the same meaning. This means that language
awareness activities should play an important role, which could involve, for instance,
exposing learners to real-life recordings.

Teaching speech acts can also provide a rich opportunity for exploring sociolinguis-
tic and cross-cultural issues. The appropriate realization and level of directness of any
speech act is highly sensitive to the sociocultural context. This is particularly impor-
tant when there is a status or power differential, as in the office environment. Again,
familiar classroom tasks could be used to develop awareness of such sociocultural
issues; for example identifying appropriate speech act realizations depending on speak-
er relationship (employer–employee or vice versa), i.e. through multiple choice,
matching or more creative activities. Cross-cultural differences can also be explored,
for example by comparing speech acts in the target language with the learners’ lan-
guage/culture and examining such questions as: which speech acts are appropriate to a
particular situation; how these speech acts are realized; in which language or culture
they are more direct, etc.

To sum up, discourse analysis can provide valuable insights into the way people inter-
act through speaking, and thus its findings can be effectively used in sociolinguistics,
cross-cultural communication and different areas of language teaching, including gram-
mar, vocabulary, communication strategies, etc. 

References:

1. Burns, A.; Joyce, H. (1997) Focus on Speaking. Sydney: Macquarie University.
2. Carter, R.A. (1998) Orders of Reality. // CANCODE, Communication, and Culture.

ELT Journal, 52 (1). Oxford: OUP.
3. Cohen, A.D. (1996) Developing the Ability to Perform Speech Acts. // Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 18 (2). Cambridge: CUP.
4. Cook, G. (1989) Discourse. Oxford: OUP.
5. Dornyei, Z.; Thurrell, S. (1994) Teaching Conversational Skills Intensively: Course

Content and Rationale. // ELT Journal, 48 (1). Oxford: OUP.

Armenian Folia Anglistika Methodology

114



6. Hymes, D.H. (Ed.) (1964) Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics
and Anthropology. New York: Harper & Row.

7. Hymes, D.H. (1989) Ways of Speaking. // Explorations in the Ethnography of
Speaking. / Ed. by R. Bauman and J. Sherzer. Cambridge: CUP. 

8. Koester, A. (2000) Getting Things Done and Getting along in the Office. // Dialogue
Analysis VII: Working with Dialogue: Selected papers from the 7th IADA Conference.
/ Ed. by M. Coulthard, J. Cotterill, F. Rock. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH.

9. Levinson, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.
10. McCarthy, M.J. (1998) Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
11. McCarthy, M.J.; Carter, R.A. (1994) Language as Discourse: Perspectives for

Language Teaching. London: Longman.
12. McCarthy, M.J.; Carter, R.A. (1995) Spoken Grammar: What Is It and How Can We

Teach It? // ELT Journal, 49 (3). Oxford: OUP.
13. Pearson, E. (1986) Agreement/Disagreement: an Example of Results of Discourse

Analysis Applied to the Oral English Classroom. // International Review of Applied
Linguistics 74: De Gruyter Mouton.

14. Sacks, H. (1987) On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in
Conversation. // Talk and Social Organization. / Ed. by G. Button & J.R. Lee.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

15. Schegloff, E. (1984) On Some Questions and Ambiguities in Conversation. //
Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. / Ed. by Atkinson, J.
Heritage. Cambridge: CUP. J.M

16. Schegloff, E. (1988) Presequences and Indirection: Applying Speech Act Theory to
Ordinary Conversation. // Journal of Pragmatics, 12. Elsevier.

17. Scotton, C.M. Bernsten, J. (1988) Natural Conversations as a Model for Textbook
Dialogue. // Applied Linguistics 9 (4). Oxford: OUP.

18. Teichmann, H.D.; Kiefer, P. (1998) The European Language Certificates: Certificate
in English. Learning Objectives and Test Format. Frankfurt am Main: WBT
Weiterbildungs-Testsysteme GmbH.

19. Thomas, J. (1984) Cross-cultural Discourse as “Unequal Encounter”: Towards a
Pragmatic Analysis. // Applied Linguistics, 5 (3). Oxford: OUP.

¸ÇëÏáõñëÇ í»ñÉáõÍáõÃÛáõÝÁ É»½í³Ï³Ý ¨ ѳÕáñ¹³Ïó³Ï³Ý ÑÙïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ
áõëáõó³Ý»Éáõ Ýå³ï³Ïáí

ÊáëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³Ïï»ñÇ Ñ³çáÕ Çñ³Ï³Ý³óáõÙÁ μ³í³Ï³ÝÇÝ μ³ñ¹ »ñ¨áõÛà ¿, áñÁ
»Ýó¹ñáõÙ ¿ ѳÝñ³Ùß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ ·Çï»ÉÇù ³ÛÝ Ù³ëÇÝ, û ÇÝã ѳݷ³ Ù³ÝùÝ»ñáõÙ
ËáëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³ÏïÇ ÇÝã Ó¨»ñ áõ ÇÝã é³½Ù³í³ñáõÃÛáõÝ ¿ å»ïù ÏÇñ³é»É, û ïíÛ³É
³ÏïÇ Ï³ï³ñáõÙÁ »ñμ ¿ ï»ÕÇÝ, ¨ ³ÛÉÝ:  ê³Ï³ÛÝ ÝÙ³Ý Ñ³Ù³ÏáÕÙ³ÝÇ Ùáï»óÙ³Ý
³ÝÑñ³Å»ßïáõÃÛáõÝÁ ÙÇßï ã¿, áñ ÁÝϳÉíáõÙ ¨ ÁݹáõÝíáõÙ ¿ ËáëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³Ïï»ñÇ
áõëáõóÙ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝóóáõÙ:  Ð³×³Ë ÝϳïíáõÙ ¿ ËáëáÕ³Ï³Ý ³ÏïÁ áñáß³ÏÇ É»½-
í³Ï³Ý ϳճå³ñÝ»ñÇ Ñ»ï ÝáõÛݳóÝ»Éáõ ã³÷³ ½³Ýó å³ñ½»óí³Í ѳÏáõÙ:

Armenian Folia AnglistikaMethodology

115



¸ÇëÏáõñëÇ í»ñÉáõÍáõÃÛáõÝÝ ³ñÅ»ù³íáñ ÝÛáõà ϳñáÕ ¿ ïñ³Ù³¹ñ»É É»½íÇ ³ñ¹Ûáõ-
ݳí»ï áõëáõóÙ³Ý Ñ³Ù³ñ, Áݹ áñáõÙ ï³ñμ»ñ ٳϳñ¹³ÏÝ»ñáõÙ áõ áÉáñïÝ»ñáõÙ.
û° ù»ñ³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý, û° μ³é³å³ß³ñÇ, û° ѳÕáñ¹³ÏóÙ³Ý é³½Ù³í³ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»-
ñÇ, ÙÇçÙß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ Ñ³Õáñ¹³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ û° ѳÝñ³É»½í³μ³ ÝáõÃÛ³Ý áõëáõóÙ³Ý

¹³ëÁÝóóÝ»ñáõÙ:

Armenian Folia Anglistika Methodology

116