Maket 2011:Layout 1.qxd Higher Levels of Discourse ànd Understanding of Language Use Iraj Safaei Keshtegar Yerevan State University Introduction In the past the tendency has been to concentrate on usage on the assumption that learners will eventually pick up the necessary knowledge of use on their own. There are traditions within linguistics which have always placed emphasis on meaning and use. The most influential linguist is M. Halliday. He says, “The more we are able to relate the option in grammatical systems to meaning potentials in the social contexts, the more insight we shall gain into the nature of language system” (Halliday 1985). He is completely at odds in this view with Chomsky (1957) who assumes that actual lan- guage is degenerate and deviate from the rules of grammar. According to H.G. Widdowson discourse analysis refers to the investigation into the way sentences are put to communicative use, discourse being roughly defined therefore, as the use of sen- tences (Widdowson 1979). “The schemata, or shared contextual assumptions are of their nature unstable and negotiable in the process of overt interaction” (Widdowson 2004). “The intended interpretation of an utterance is not decoded but inferred, by a non-demonstrative inference process - a process of hypothesis formation and evalua- tion” (Wilson 1994). We can conclude that the mastery of language use – teaching students how to mean as well as how to form should not be neglected. Being a communicator, having what D.H. Hymes calls communicative competence, involves more. Now that sentences are not sup- posed to be created, manipulated and assessed in isolation, and it is necessary to reveal more about the learner’s communicative competence, the concept of higher levels of dis- course must in some sense be central. Subjects Seventy-two male and female subjects were randomly selected among the university student population studying General English. The subjects were randomly assigned to two groups of 36 students each. One group became the experimental group and received the special treatment (Higher Levels of Discourse), and the control group which did not receive the treatment. The students’ level was low-level in both the experimental and control groups. Materials In the present study 8 extracts have been taken from real-life contexts and situations. A transcribed speech, an interview, a telephone conversation, three daily conversations, a newspaper article and a letter have been selected for the content of these extracts. Each of these extracts was followed by some questions. The questions had been devised so that students’ understanding through higher levels of discourse (social relationship, shared Armenian Folia Anglistika Methodology 110 knowledge, discourse type, discourse structure, discourse function) could be tested. The treatment was given to the experimental group in Persian. Procedure In this research a pilot study was conducted, the treatment together with extracts were administered to three students who were studying General English. The results of the pilot study pinpointed that the meanings of some unfamiliar words should be given to students in Persian in order to make the piece of discourse more comprehensible. A pre- test was administered before the treatment in order to capture the initial differences between the experimental and control groups and make the groups more homogeneous. Fifteen minutes were considered for reading and answering the questions. A post-test (4 extracts) was administered after an interval of two weeks. The post-test was intended to help us find out the differences between the two groups which are due to the higher levels of discourse (the treatment). The experimental group was asked to read the treat- ment (higher levels of discourse) which had been given in Persian. So each subject received 4 extracts for pre-test and 4 other extracts for post-test. Results The extracts of each subject were scored. Four qualified and independent judges gave an overall evaluation of the students’ pre-tests and post-tests. In this study inter-rater reli- ability was crucial, in order to estimate judgments one rater will also be arrived at and agreed upon by another rater. So each extract was given a point by four judges and the total score was taken into account as the ultimate score. The mean, standard deviations for pre-test scores are presented in the following table: It is obvious that the experimental and control groups are comparable and homoge- neous. The difference between their means is not significant. Therefore, the baseline knowledge of the two groups about higher levels of discourse can be considered equal. In order to study the significant effect of the higher levels of discourse on the under- standing of language use, the data was submitted to a t-test the results of which are shown in the following table: P=.05 Armenian Folia AnglistikaMethodology 111 Group N ________X______________ S.D Experimental 36 59.19 10.88 Control 36 56.41 10.72 Group N Mean S.D t-critical - tvalue Experimental 36 66.58 15.44 2.000 2.89 70 Control 36 57.54 10.57 Group d.f Therefore, the claim that the higher levels of discourse promote understanding of lan- guage use has been supported. Conclusion The experiment reported in this study indicates that one might make authentic mate- rials more comprehensible and facilitate students’ understanding of them by providing information on the higher levels of discourse. Besides, the findings of this experiment are perhaps not so surprising when one con- siders what D.H. Hymes (1972) stated about the importance of the rules of use without which the rules of grammar would be useless. According to D.H. Hymes a person who knows only how to make or recognize correct sentences without any other considera- tions, would be likely to be institutionalized for saying all kinds of inappropriate, irrele- vant and uninteresting things. Being a communicator, having what D.A. Hymes calls communicative competence involves much more. So the higher levels of discourse revealed most about the learners’ communicative competence. The findings of this study are also consistent with what H.G. Widdowson (1978) stated about knowing a language. He says that knowing a language should be supple- mented by a knowledge of what sentences count as in their normal use. According to H.G. Widdowson (2004), in the grammar, the systems are kept apart. In actual use, however, they are not. When the semantic resources are actualized pragmatically as text, they act upon each other in various ways like TOPIC/COMMENT or GIVEN/NEW and it is a matter of interpretation beyond analysis. The results also confirm the higher levels of achievement stated by M. Halliday (1994) as a contribu- tion to the evaluation of the text. At this level, the text is interpreted externally in relation to context. M. Halliday explains that we are concerned not with what texts mean but what users mean by texts in their realization of their communicative pur- poses. Moreover, as it is clear from the present study, learners in approaching a piece of dis- course need to take some linguistic and situational detail as a cue and form a general hypothesis they deal with a piece of discourse. Pedagogical Implications Discourse analysis is a rapidly expanding field providing insights into the problems and processes of language use and language learning. It examines how stretches of lan- guage, considered in their full textual, social and psychological context become mean- ingful and unified for their user. By taking into account the higher levels of discourse we can gain some insights into problems and processes of language use and language learn- ing. H.G. Widdowson (1984) states that indexical meanings must be achieved by the lan- guage user associating symbols with some relevant aspect of the world outside language in the situation or in the mind. H.G. Widdowson seeks a model of language use in which Armenian Folia Anglistika Methodology 112 meanings are realized in context. So context refers to the features of non-linguistic world in relation to which linguistic units are systematically used. Students who are familiar with the higher levels of discourse, can achieve meanings both indexically and contextu- ally. Higher levels of discourse can serve as an aid to the teachers to provide a general idea of a piece of discourse in the classroom. They can help the students to develop their com- municative competence. Moreover, higher levels of discourse have implications for textbook writers. They can devise questions based on higher levels of discourse and provide the learners with the authentic materials based on the everyday-life situations. Higher levels of discourse will serve as a means for deeper understanding of a piece of dis- course. Theoretical Implications Teachers of language try to turn to the processes involved when a language learner deals with a piece of discourse. The outcome of this research provides implications for revealing more about communicative competence. The proposed model in the following figure presents some of the processes which can be used in the development of commu- nicative competence. Texts& dialogues Information about higher levels of discourse Figure 1. some of the processes used in the development of communicative competence Armenian Folia AnglistikaMethodology 113 The input to this model is the information about the higher levels of discourse togeth- er with texts and dialogues (based on the everyday-life situation) on the basis of which foreign language learners develop their communicative competence and the output is bet- ter learning of a piece of discourse. Hence, better understanding of a piece of discourse takes place as a result of the interaction between these processes. Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. S. Gasparyan for her invaluable comments. My special words of thanks should go to Dr. I. Karapetyan for his critical reading of this research and constructive comments. I am also grateful to all students who participated in the experiment. References: 1. Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2. Cook, G. (1990) Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 3. Coulthard, M. (1985) An introduction to Discourse Analysis. Second edition. London: Longman. 4. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Longman. 5. Harris, Z. (1952) Discourse Analysis. The Structure of Language (reprinted in Fodorand Katz, 1964). // Language 28. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 6. Hymes, D.H. (1974) Foundations of Sociolinguistics. Pittsburgh: University of Pennsylvania Press. 7. Johnson, K. (1984) Skill Psychology and Communicative Methodology. // Paper pre- sented at the RELC Seminar, Singapore. Oxford: Pergamon. 8. Little, D.; Devitt, S. and Singleton, D. (1988) Authentic Texts in Foreign Language Teaching: Theory and Practice. Dublin: Authentik. 9. Stubbs, M.W. (2001) Words and Meanings. Oxford: Blackwell. 10. Savignon, S. (1983) Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Reading Mass: Addison-Wesley. 11. Widdowson, H.G. (1983) Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 12. Widdowson, H.G. (2004) Text, Context, Pretext. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing LTD. ¸ÇëÏáõñëÇ μ³ñÓñ³·áõÛÝ Ù³Ï³ñ¹³ÏÝ»ñÁ ¨ É»½íÇ ÏÇñ³éÙ³Ý ÇÙ³ëï³íáñáõÙÁ ¸ÇëÏáõñëÇ í»ñÉáõÍáõÃÛ³Ý ï»ëáõÃÛáõÝÁ ·Çï³Ï³Ý Áݹ³ñÓ³Ï áÉáñï ¿, áñï»Õ ѳٳ·áñͳÏóáõÙ »Ý ÙÇ ß³ñù ·Çï³Ï³Ý ³í³Ý¹áõÛÃÝ»ñ, ³Û¹ ÃíáõÙ` É»½í³μ³ - Armenian Folia Anglistika Methodology 114 ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ, ׳ݳãáÕ³Ï³Ý Ñá·» μ³ ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ, ëáóÇáÉá·Ç³Ý ¨ ³ñÑ»ëï³Ï³Ý ÇÝï»- É»ÏïÁ: êáõÛÝ Ñá¹í³ÍáõÙ ÷áñÓ ¿ ³ñí»É μ³ó³Ñ³Ûï»É ¹ÇëÏáõñëÇ μ³ñÓñ³·áõÛÝ Ù³- ϳñ¹³ÏÝ»ñÇ ¹»ñÁ É»½íÇ ÏÇñ³éáõÙÁ ÇÙ³ëï³íáñ»Éáõ ·áñÍáõÙ: ²Û¹ Ýå³ï³ÏÇÝ Ñ³ëÝ»Éáõ ѳٳñ å³ï³Ñ³Ï³Ý ÁÝïñáõÃÛ³Ý Ï³ñ·áí ÁÝïñí»É »Ý ÁݹѳÝáõñ ³Ý·- É»ñ»Ý ëáíáñáÕ ÛáóݳëáõÝ »ñÏáõ ³ñ³Ï³Ý ¨ Ç·³ Ï³Ý ë»é»ñÇ áõë³ÝáÕÝ»ñ: êáõÛÝ áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛ³Ý ³ñ¹ÛáõÝùÝ»ñÁ ѳٳå³ï³ë˳ÝáõÙ »Ý гÛÙëÇ` É»½íÇ ÏÇ- ñ³éÙ³ÝÁ í»ñ³μ» ñáÕ Ñ³ÛïÝÇ ¹ñáõÛÃÇÝ, Áëï áñÇ ³é³Ýó É»½íÇ ÏÇñ³éÙ³Ý Ï³ÝáÝ- Ý»ñÇ ÇÙ³óáõÃÛ³Ý ù»ñ³Ï³Ý³Ï³Ý ϳÝáÝÝ»ñÝ ³ÝÇÙ³ëï »Ý: êáõÛÝ Ñ»ï³½áïáõÃ- Û³Ý Ù»ç áñáß Ù»Ãá¹³ Ï³Ý ËáñÑáõñ¹Ý»ñ »Ý ïñíáõÙ μáõÑ»ñÇ ¹³ë³ËáëÝ»ñÇÝ` Ç- ñ»Ýó áõë³ÝáÕÝ»ñÇ Ñ³Õáñ¹³Ïó³Ï³Ý ÑÙïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ½³ñ·³óÝ»Éáõ Ýå³ï³Ïáí: Armenian Folia AnglistikaMethodology 115