EXPLORING SUDANESE EFL UNIVERSITY LEARNERS" DISCOURSE COMPETENCE Indonesian EFL Journal, Volume1(1) January2015ISSN2252-7427 EXPLORING SUDANESE EFL UNIVERSITY LEARNERS' DISCOURSE COMPETENCE Ali Ahmed Osman Zakaria Department of English language & Linguistics, University of Kassala, SudanE-mail: haddad_31970@hotmail.com Abdel Rahim Hamid Mugaddam Institute of African & Asian Studies, University of Khartoum, SudanE-mail: sudan_98@hotmail.comAPAcitation: Zakaria,A.A.O.&Muqaddam,A.R.H. (2015).ExploringSudaneseEFLuniversity learners'discoursecompetence. Indonesian EFL Journal, 1(1), 27-33Received:03-09-2014 Accepted:13-11-2014 Published:01-01-2015 Abstract: This paper investigates the discourse competence of the Sudanese EFL university learners.The main objective is to evaluate and assess the students’ ability to produce unified and meaningfultexts. 98 SudaneseEFLstudents fromFaculty of different SudaneseUniversities served as subjects forthe study. Two instruments were employed for data collection: a questionnaire and audio-recordedconversations. Results revealed that the students had some difficulties in producing coherent andmeaningful texts. The linguistic forms they used were very limited, which did not show anysophisticated use of language. Results also revealed that the students were not well-acquainted withturn-taking rules during conversation. In their responses to the questionnaires, they reported a verygood command of cohesive devices in the process of producing coherent discourse events, whichappeared to be incorrect. However, they were able to use simple language to expand certain pointsinto meaningful stretches of language. In addition, some students were able to demonstrate an abilityto engage into the production and interpretation of unified and meaningful discourse. Nevertheless,the analysis suggests that the students under study are still far from being competent as far asdiscoursecompetence is concerned. Keywords: discourse competence, turn taking, conversational norm, communicative intentions, transition-relevance principle INTRODUCTIONTheability tocommunicateeffectively inEnglish isoneof the factors thatarehighlyappreciated inworkplace.Beinggoodcommunicator inEnglish is an indicator forthesuccess in the tasksperformedbyemployees.That iswhy inmany jobannouncements fluency in theEnglishlanguage is regardedasoneof the factorsthatareused forratingapplicants.Morrealeetal. (2000)state thatas individualsbecomematureandworkingadults, communicationcompetencecontinues tobeessential.Communicationskillsare required inmostoccupations.Employers identifycommunicationasoneof thebasiccompetencieseverygraduateshouldhave,asserting that theability tocommunicate isvaluable forobtainingemploymentand maintainingsuccessful jobperformance.Tobegivena job, theapplicantsmustbewithoral andwritingcompetenceso that theyperformwellanddemonstrate success inteamwork.This situationdoesalsoexist inSudan. Inmany instances, speakingandwriting inEnglish fluently is consideredasagatekeeper for successandemployment. Sodevelopingstudents'discoursecompetence isvery important. Studentsareexpectedtobewithgoodskills incommunicating inEnglishby the time theyhave finishedtheiruniversityeducation.Theywillnotmanage todosounless theyhaveagoodknowledgeofthe features thatcontribute to theproductionofeffectiveand interpretablediscourse.Hymes(1972)proposes thatdiscoursecompetenceaccounts for students'knowledgeof thewaysdiscourse is 27 Ali Ahmed Osman Zakaria & Abdel Rahim Hamid Mugaddam Exploring Sudanese EFLUniversity Learners' Discourse Competence sequencedandtheability tostructurediscourseeffectively. So it is theknowledgeofrules regarding thecohesionandcoherenceofvarious typesofdiscourse.CanaleandSwain(1980)emphasize that rulesofdiscoursearecrucial in interpretingutterances forsocialmeaning,particularlywhenthe literalmeaningofanutterancedoesnot lead to the speaker’s intentioneasily.Discoursecompetenceentailsknowledgeofhowlanguage isused insocial settings toperformdifferent communicative functions.Further,discoursecompetencedealswithhowutterancesareused inmorecoherentandunified fashion toperformdifferentcommunicative functions indifferent socialcontexts.Therefore, it is themasteryofhowtocombinegrammatical formsandmeaningstoachievecertaincommunicativepurposesinsomesocial situations.DiscourseCompetencecanbeseenas theability tounderstand, createanddevelop formsof thelanguage thatare longer thansentenceswiththeappropriatecohesion, coherenceandrhetoricalorganization tocombine ideas.Turn taking isavery important factor inthe instancesofanydiscourseevent. Sacksetal. (1974)state thatpeople take turnswhentheyareselectedornominatedby thecurrentspeaker, or ifnoone is selected, theyspeakoftheirownaccord("self-selection"). Ifneitherof theseconditionsapplies, thepersonwhoiscurrently speakingmaycontinue. Sacksetalalsosuggest thata turncanbe takenatanypointof theconversation,yetasmooth turnshiftoccursata transition-relevanceplace,whenaspeakerexpects toyield the floorandthe listener is ready toaccept thenewrole.Violating the transition-relevanceprinciplewill disrupt thediscourse throughinterruptions. Itmustbenoted thateven ifthey can indeedmaterialize throughoverlaps,interruptionsshouldbedistinguished fromnaturaloverlapping.AsnotedbyFreemanandMcElhinny (1996) “tounderstandanyoverlapasan interruption is toargue that theconversationalnorm isonespeakerat a time”.Studentsneedtobe taughtwhenandhowtheycan intervenewhenbeing involved inaconversation. Cohesion isconcernedwithrelationshipbothwithinandbeyondthesentence.Cohesivecategoriesare functional categories,thoughof courserealized in lexical,grammatical andother forms(Wingard,1981).ForMartin (1992)cohesion isoneofthe textproperties that contribute to theorganisationofdiscourse.ThesameviewheldbyHoey(1991),whonotes thatcohesionmaybecrudelydefinedas thewaycertainwordsorgrammatical featuresofasentencecanbeused tocreateconnectedsentenceswithinasequence.HallidayandHasan(1976)note that cohesionresearchfocusesonacomprehensiveexaminationofsystematicdevicesused toconnect thesurface formof texts. It is thesurfacemanifestationof theunderlyingrelations thatbinda text.Whilecohesiondoesnotprovidea full accountof the textual interpretationofa text, it isan important indicator. ForHallidayandHasan, theorganisationof text isrealized(in largepart) in therelationsamongsemanticandgrammatical items inthe text.These itemsarereferredtoascohesive ties.Cohesivedevicesaredivided into fivebroadclasses: conjunction; reference; substitution;ellipsis; and lexical cohesion. Cohesivedevicesplayacrucial role inholdinga texttogether.Theyprovidemeans for linking thesurface text structure.GrabeandKaplan(1996)argue that cohesivedevicesreflectboth thecommunicative intentionsandthechoicesmadebytheauthor instructuresusedand in the linearorderingof the text.Coherence is thequalityof creatingaunifiedandsolid textwhichmakesunderstandingand interpretationeasy fortheaudience.Thornbury(2005)pointsoutthat coherence is thecapacityofa text tomakesense.An incoherent textdoesnotmakesense,howevercloselyconnected itsindividualutterancesmightbe.Coherence isthequality that the listener/readerderivesfromtext.Becketal. (1991)argue thatcoherenceasa theoretical construct in textstructurerefers to theunderlyingrelationsthatholdbetweenassertions (orpropositions)andhowtheseassertionscontribute to theoveralldiscourse theme(ormacro-structure).This setof relations 28 Indonesian EFL Journal, Volume1(1) January2015ISSN2252-7427 assumes thatcoherent textwill beunifiedbyoneoverarching theme,whetherstatedorimplicit. It is coherence in text structurewhichallowsthe listener/reader tobuildamodelof comprehension(Garnham1991,Singer1990).Thus it is theresponsibilityofthespeaker toattach theaspectof coherenceto the texthe/she iscreating inorder toconvey themessage inawaythatmeets theaudienceexpectations.Thespeakerwhowishes tocommunicatehis/her thoughts totheiraudiencesuccessfullymustproduceacoherentpieceofdiscourse.Thornbury(2005)pointsout thatcoherence isusuallyapproached fromtwolevels: microandthemacro.At themicro-level, theaudiencehavecertainexpectationsofhowtheproposition(themeaning)ofanutteranceorasentence is likely tobedeveloped.Whentheseexpectationsaremet,theemerging textwill seemtobecoherent.At themacro-level coherence isenhanced if: a)theaudiencecaneasilydiscernwhat the textisabout, b) the text isorganised inawaythatanswers listener/reader's likelyquestionsandc) the text isorganised inawaythat isfamiliar to theaudience.BrownandYule(1983) followingWiddowson(1973)suggestthat coherence is theresultofconventionalizedknowledgeandsequenceswhichareader/hearerwillbeable tocalluponto imposeacoherent frameontoamessage.YuleandBrowncontinue thatcoherence isessentially thecreationof thereader/listenerrather thanaproductof thetext. So, it isnot created inthe text itself, butin thereader/listener's ability tocalluponcertainsharedconventionalizedknowledge. METHOD ParticipantsTheparticipants in this study included98SudaneseEFLstudentswhoare takingEnglishas theirmajorat threeSudaneseuniversities -SudanUniversityofScienceandTechnology,AlneelainuniversityandKassalauniversity.Thestudentscome fromdifferentregionsofSudan.Thismeans theycanbetakenasasample for theSudaneseEFLUniversity learners' community.Thestudentsarebelieve touseEnglish effectivelyby the time theyhave finished theiruniversityeducation.Theyareexpected tocontribute tothedevelopmentof their local communitieswhich leads to thedevelopmentof thecountryasawhole.Thecourses theparticipants tookatuniversityarebelieved toequip themwith theknowledgenecessary toperformsuccessfullyall thesortof the jobsthat requirecommandofEnglish.However,someresearchersbelieve that theparticipantsarenot competent to theextentthat theycanprovidedatareliable forresearchwork.English inSudan isnotpractisedby thestudentsoutside lecturerooms. It isnotusedby thestudents in theirdaily social life. English isonlyauniversitysubject that is taughtandpractised in thelectureroom. InstrumentsTwotoolswereusedtocollect thedata forthispaper:aquestionnaire, andanaudio-recorded interview.Adopting twodifferentinstruments fordatacollectionhelps theresearchersgetacomprehensiveviewontheresponsesprovidedbytherespondents.Observingstudents' actualperformancewillreveal the facts thatcannotbeobtainedthrough thequestionnaire. So, thereasonbehindhaving these twotools fordatacollection is tohavereliabledata that canyield reasonable results. The questionnaireThequestionnairedesignedtocollectthedata for this studywasbasedbasicallyontheCommonEuropeanFrameworkofReference forLanguages (2001).Thisemergesasaserioussteptoconductanefficientanduseful study.Thequestionnairewasdesigned tocollect informationabouthowSudaneseuniversity learnersevaluateandassess theirdiscoursecompetence. It isalso to let studentsconsider thesortof thefactors that theyneed inorder toproduceandunderstandmeaningful andcommunicativediscourse.Thequestionnairealsorepresentsa tool tocollect informationaboutstudents' ability toproduceandinterpretunifiedandmeaningfuldiscourse.Thequestionnairecomprises foursections. 29 Ali Ahmed Osman Zakaria & Abdel Rahim Hamid Mugaddam Exploring Sudanese EFLUniversity Learners' Discourse Competence Sectionone isaboutstudents' flexibility inconstructing fluentandcomprehensivediscourse.Thesecondsection tacklesstudents' competence in turnstaking. Sectionthreedealswithstudents' capacity todevelopandelaborateaparticular themeintomeaningful stretchesof language.The fourthsection involvesstudents'knowledgeof textcohesionandcoherence. The audio-recorded interviewThe interviewwasconductedwith theparticipants tocompareandcontrast thefactsaboutstudents'discoursecompetenceandthe facts that couldbedrawnfromtheiractualdiscourse.This is tobecertain that thedataused for thepaper ismorereliableandrealistic. FINDINGS & DISCUSSION Flexibility Table1.Students' own appraisal of their ability to engage into a meaningful and comprehensive discourse MedianNoYesItemNo 117.2%82.8%Icanshowgreat flexibility reformulating ideas clearlyaccording todifferent situationsofuse.1 1781 125.5%74.5%Ihave theability toadjustwhat I sayand themeansofexpressing it to the situationandtherecipient.2 2573 141.5%58.5%Icannormally adjust to the changesofdirection, style andemphasis found inconversation.3 4157 223.4%76.6%Iamable tovary formulationofwhat Iwant to say.4 2375 241.5%58.5%Icanadaptmyexpression todealwith less routine, evendifficult, situations.5 4157 232.8%67.2%It isnotdifficult formetoexploitawiderangeof simplelanguage flexibly toexpressmuchofwhat Iwant.6 3266 241.4%59.6%Icanexpand learnedphrases throughsimple recombinationoftheir elements.7 4058Mostof thestudents claimedthat theyhad theability to formulate their ideasaccording to thesituations.Theyheld thattheywereable tomodify theirexpressionsdue to thesituationsandrecipients. Studentsassumedtheycouldadjust tochangesaccording to thedirections, styleandemphasis found in theconversation.Thesubjectsof thestudyreported that theycouldvary in thesortof theexpressions theyproduced inorder toconvey theirmessage.Further, thestudents stated that theyhad theability toadapt theirexpressions todealwiththedifficult situations. So itwaseasy forthemtousesimple languagewithgreatflexibility toexpressmuchofwhat theywanted tosay.Thesubjectsalsoreportedthat theycoulduse the language theyhadalready learned innewdifferent situations.Analyzing theaudio-recordeddiscourseofthestudentsmade itobvious that thestudentsdidnot showany flexibility in theirdiscourse formulationandreformulation. Theycouldnot showanyability toadjust tothechanges thatoccursduringconversation. Turn takingTable2reveals that thestudentswereable to take the floor inaconversationeffectively.The tablealsoshowsthat thestudents couldselect thesuitablephrasefromtheir linguistic repertoire tosignal thatthey intended to takepart in theconversation.Thestudentsbelieved that theywereable toappropriately intervene inadiscussion.Theyasserted that theycouldselect theproperlanguage inorder todoso.Thesubjectsstated that theywerecompetent tobeginaconversation.Theycouldkeepontalking inasubtle fashion;and that theycouldendthediscourseappropriately.Moreover, the tablealsoreveals thatmostof thestudentswereable to initiate,maintainandendthediscoursewhentheywish todoso.Results inthe table showthat theparticipantsdependedoncertainstrategies togain timeandkeeptheir turn intheconversationwhile 30 Indonesian EFL Journal, Volume1(1) January2015ISSN2252-7427 thinkingofhowtoproceed.Theyusedcertain linguisticexpressions inorder toachieve this.Results alsoshowthatmostoftherespondents took turnandparticipated inthe instancesofdiscussing familiar topicsusingsimpleexpressions.Theywereable toengage intoa face-to-faceconversationconcerning topics thatare familiarand thatofpersonal interest. Studying the table, onecanguess that thestudentswereable toadoptsimple techniques tobegin, keeporenda short conversation.Onecanalsosee that theresults indicate thesubjects' ability toasktheiraudience forattention.Thestudentsreported that theyweregoodat turn takingbut thisappeared tobenot truewhentheirdiscoursewasstudiedandanalysed.Theydidnotchooseappropriateexpressions tointervene.Furthermore, theydidnot leavethecurrent speakerendhis/her turnandthenthey interveneandbegantalking. Table2.Students' statement about their ability in turn taking MedianNoYeasItemN o 234.5%65.9%It is easy forme to select a suitable phrase froma readily available rangeofdiscourse functions to preface my remarks appropriately in order to getthe floor.8 3464 230.8%69.2%I can intervene appropriately in discussion, exploiting appropriatelanguagetodoso.9 3068 234.5%65.9%It is not difficult for me to initiate, maintain and end discourseappropriatelywitheffective turn taking.10 3464 119.2%80.8%I can initiate discourse, take my turn when appropriate and endconversationwhenIneed.11 1979 242.5%57.5%I can use stock phrases (e.g. ‘That’s a difficult question to answer’) to gaintimeandkeep the turnwhilst formulatingwhat to say.12 4256 231.9%68.1I have the ability to intervene in a discussion on a familiar topic, using asuitablephrase toget the floor.13 3167 230.8%69.2%I can initiate,maintain and close simple face-to-face conversationon topicsthatare familiarorofpersonal interest.14 3068 123.4%76.6%I am able to use simple techniques to start, maintain, or end a shortconversation.15 2375 227.7%72.3%Icanappropriatelyask forattention.16 2771 Thematic development Table3.Students appraisal of their own ability to develop a topic into meaningful discourse. MedianNoYeasItemNo 236.8%63.2%I can give elaborate descriptions and narratives, integrating sub-themes, developingparticularpoints.17 3662 236.8%63.2%I can develop a clear description expanding and supporting my mainpoints with relevant supportingdetail andexamples.18 3662 243.6%56.4%I can fluently relate a straightforward description as a linear sequenceofpoints.19 4355 120.2%79.8%Ihave theability todescribesomething inasimple list ofpoints.20 2078Thetableabovereveals that thestudentscoulddescribeandnarrateanyeventsveryappropriately.Theycoulddiscussanddevelopverycomplicatedthemes andsub-themes.Theyhadtheabilitydevelopandelaborateany topic intoaverysuccessfulcommunicativeevent. Further, the tableshows that theparticipantswereable to support theclaimtheymadewithcomprehensiveanddetaileddata.Thesubjectscouldmovesmoothlydeveloping thediscourse inwhich theywereengaged.Theycouldelaborate itbysmoothlymoving frompoint toanother.Analysisof thestudents'actualdiscourseshowsthat thestudentswerenotable todevelopaparticular theme 31 Ali Ahmed Osman Zakaria & Abdel Rahim Hamid Mugaddam Exploring Sudanese EFLUniversity Learners' Discourse Competence intoameaningful thought.They found itverydifficult toexpresswhat they felt aboutaparticular topic.However, thestudentsreported that theyhad theability tousesimple language toexpandcertainpoints intomeaningful stretchesof language. Cohesion and coherenceTable4 reveals that thestudents couldusecohesivedevices toproducewellconnectedpieceofdiscourse.The tablealsoshows that thestudentshadtheability toproduceunifiedandcoherent stretchesoflanguage.Theycouldconnect thesestretchestoproduce interpretableandmeaningfuldiscourse.Thetablealsoreveals that therespondentscouldusediscoursemakers todemonstrate thedifferent relations thatholdamongdifferent ideas.The tablemakes it clear that thestudentshad theability tousealimitedsetof cohesivedevices toconnect theideas theyweave in theirdiscoursewhichresults inaclearandcoherentdiscourse.Thetablealsoshowsthat thesubjects could linkaseriesof short,discrete, simpleelements intoaconnected, linearsequenceofpoints.Further, the tablereports that theparticipantswereable tousecoordinatingconjunctions inorder toproduceeffectivediscourse. Students'discourseseemedto lackinanysortof cohesivedevices. In theirresponse to thequestionnaire, therespondentsclaimedthat theycouldmakeaverygooduseofcohesivedevices inorder tolinkwordsandphrases intoacoherentandunifieddiscourse.But theiractualdiscoursedidnot reveal suchaclaim. Table 4. Students evaluation of their own ability to produce a coherent and unified discourse. MedianNoYesItemNo 236.8%63.2%I can create coherent and cohesive text making full and appropriateuseofawiderangeof cohesivedevices.21 3662 348.9%51.1%I canproduce clear, smoothly flowing,well-structured speech, showingcontrolled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesivedevices.22 4850 119.2%80.8%I am able to use a variety of linking words efficiently to mark clearlytherelationshipsbetweenideas.23 1979 227.7%72.3%I have the ability to use a limited number of cohesive devices to linkmyutterances intoclear, coherentdiscourse.24 2771 233.1%66.9%Ican linka seriesof shorter, discrete simpleelements intoaconnected,linearsequenceofpoints.25 3365 226.6%73.4%I am able to use the most frequently occurring connectors to linksimple sentences in order to describe something as a simple list ofpoints.26 2672 118.1%81.9%Ihaveability to linkgroupsofwordswithsimple connectors like ‘and’,‘but’ and ‘because’.27 1880 CONCLUSIONAnalysing theaudio-recordeddiscourseof thestudentsmade itobvious that thestudentsdidnot showany flexibility in theirdiscourse formulationandreformulation.Theycouldnotdemonstrate theirability toadjust to thechanges thatoccursduringconversation.The linguistic formstheyusedwerevery limitedwhichdidnot showanysophisticateduseof language.Thestudentsreported that theyweregoodat turn takingbut thisappeared tobenot truewhentheirdiscoursewasstudiedandanalysed.Theparticipantsdidnotchooseappropriate expressions to intervene.Furthermore, thesubjects ignored the techniquesnecessary forturn taking; theydidnot leave thecurrentspeakerendhis/her turnbefore theyintervenedandbegan talking.Analysisof thestudents' actualdiscoursealsoshowedthatthestudentswerenotable todevelopaparticular theme intoameaningful thought.They found itverydifficult toexpresswhatthey feltaboutaparticular topic.However, thestudents reported thattheyhadtheability tousesimple langue toexpandcertainpoints intomeaningfulstretchesof language. Students'discourse 32 Indonesian EFL Journal, Volume1(1) January2015ISSN2252-7427 seemedto lack inany sortof cohesivedevices.In their response to thequestionnaire, therespondentsclaimedthat theycouldmakeaverygooduseofcohesivedevices inorder tolinkwordsandphrases intoacoherentandunifieddiscourse.But theiractualdiscoursedidnot reveal suchaclaim.Teachersneedtoprovideexerciseswhichhelpstudentsdeveloptheir communicativecompetencesothat theycouldproduceeffectivediscourse.Theyshould train thestudentsonhowtodevelopaparticular topic intoameaningfulthought. Studentsneed tobelieve that theskillsnecessary toengage intoasuccessfulcommunication dictatebeing involved inmoreseriousanddeliberateuseof language.Teachersalsoneed toplaysomeimportantrole inclearingawaystudents' apprehensioninrespectofusing language forcommunicativepurposes. Somestudentsreported that theyhadvery limitedknowledgeofEnglish; and that theycouldnotspeakEnglish.However, thestudentsreported this inEnglishwhichmeans thestudents canperformwell if theyareencouragedandmotivatedby the teacher. Soteachersshould tell thestudents that theycanachieve the tasks theyareasked toperform. ReferencesBrown, J.,&Yule,G. (1983).Discourse analysis.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.Canale,M.,&Swain,M. (1980)Theoreticalbasesofcommunicativeapproaches to second languageteachingand testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1-47. Freeman.R.&McElhinny,B.1996.Languageandgender. InS.McKay&N.H.Hornberger(eds) Sociolinguistics and language teaching. Cambridge:CUP.218 -80Garnham,A. (1991).Wheredoescoherencecome from?Apsycholinguistic perspective.Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics, 5, 131-141.Grabe,W.,&Kaplan,R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. LondonandNewYork:Longman.Halliday,M.A.K. andHasan,R. (1976). Cohesion in English. as a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Hatch, E. (1992).Discourse and language education.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Hoey,M. (1991).Patterns of lexis in texts. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Hymes,D. (1972).OnCommunicativeCompetence. InPrideandHolmes (eds). Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth:Penguin.Martin, J. (1992).English text: system and structure.Amsterdam:Benjamins.Morreale, S., Osborn,M.,&Pearson, J. (2000).Whycommunication is important: a rationale for thecentralityof the studyofcommunication. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 29,125Sacks,H., Schegloff E.A.&JeffersonG. (1974) .Astmplest systemattcs for theorganisatronof turn-takmg forconversatton' Language50:696735Repr~nted In(ed.) J. Schenkeln ('978)Singer,M. (1990).Psychology of language: An introduction to sentence and discourse processes.Hillsdale,NJ: LawerenceErlbaum.Thornbury, S. (2005).Beyond the sentence introducing discourse analysis. Oxford:MacmillianEducation.Widdowson,H. (1973). Direction in the teaching of discourse. InCorderandRoulet (Eds.)1973and inBrumfit and Johnson (Eds.)1979.Wingard,P. (1981).The teaching of English as an international language: A practical guide (eds).JermyAbbott andPeterWingard.London:Collins.139-170. 33