dakwatuna.com

Apa kabar sahabatku?
Bagaimana kabar imanmu?
Tidakkah kau lihat keadaan sekitar?

Ketika rembulan cenderung redup, sang mawar kian berjatuhan, pasir-pasir pantai terdampar di daratan, ranting-ranting dan dedaunan segar berguguran, gdanyaedung-gedung tinggi kian menampakkan puingnya, burung-burung yang kicauannya indah pun kini tak sedikit pun mengeluarkan gemericik alunan na

Ada apa sebenarnya?
Apa yang terjadi??

Kuingin kembali melihat tajamnya duri sang mawar dan kuingin kembali melihat kerasnya tantangan untuk melihat keindahan edelweiss.

Sahabat, ke manakah intan berkilauan itu?
Ke mana sang edelweiss yang sangat terjaga?
Begitu mudahkah mereka sekarang didapatkan?

Tak ada lagikah istilah pendakian gunung yang terjal, melewati badai, angin yang mematikan, udara yang membekukan tubuh, mempertaruhkan jiwa, demi sang edelweiss yang bertengger manis di atap gunung?

Tak ada lagikah istilah penyelaman laut menantang karang-karang ganas demi mendapatkan sebuah cangkang yang di dalamnya bersembunyi sang mutiara?
Keadaan seperti apa ini duhai sahabat?

Sebegitu parahkah peradaban yang terbentuk sekarang?
Sebegitu cepatkah penyebaran kondusif pesta kemaksiatan?

Aku kecewa sahabat, diriku putus asa, batinku menangis
Bukan karena menatapi kondisi yang ada
Bukan pula untuk meratapi kekuasaan kebatilan yang sekarang berjalan sombong di atas lemahnya kebajikan?

Ku menangis karena sedikit bergesernya komitmenmu
Karena dirimu yang terlalu cerdas dan supel mengikuti sistem digitalisasi dunia
Dunia yang semakin membuncahkan keahliannya
Kemahiran dalam menutup mata batin kita
Membuat derasnya arus teknologinya seakan-akan makanan lezat yang sangat sayang untuk dilewatkan
Nikmatnya keindahan dan kebahagiaan semu

Aku rindu perangaimu dahulu
Pakaian taqwamu yang lebar membungkus indahnya dirimu
Aku rindu dengan kedewasaan pikiranmu
Dengan segala kerendahan hatimu dalam beramal
Dan tegasnya sikapmu dalam mengeksekusi

Sepenggal cuplikan nasihat dariku:
“Walau awan semakin pekat
Walau air semakin keruh
Walau karang semakin terjal
Walau udara semakin membekukan
Dan walau badai semakin mematikan”

Jangan biarkan konteks jati diri ini
Diwarnai oleh segerombolan kebatilan
Yang hanya membawa kebahagiaan semu dunia
Namun mendatangkan mudharat akhirat

Doaku selalu membersamaimu duhai sahabatku
Mari kita berjalan beriringan kembali
Dengan satu hentakan langkah yang mantap
Yang membuat iri para penghuni langit dan bumi

Sumber: http://www.dakwatuna.com/2012/07/21823/jati-dirimu-yang-kurindukan/#ixzz21n6EVaXE

Final Assignment ICT in Language Learning

1. Topic of the Study

The topic of this study is “The Use of Information and Communication Technology in Teaching Writing for Junior High School Students.”

 

2. Background of the Study

Regarding its role as an international language, English has been one of the main subjects in the secondary and upper primary education in Indonesia. That’s why many efforts have been conducted to improve the quality of its learning, including the emphasis that English learning should integrate the language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) and language components (vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, etc.). Writing, however, is one of the language skills which needs to be given a huge concern since the main purpose of mastering a second or foreign language is to make the students able to write well in English. We have defined communication as the expression, interpretation and negotiation of meaning. This definition is applicable not only to oral language but to written language as well. We express ourselves in writing as well as speaking. Most L2 learners might agree when we say that writing is the most difficult skills for them to master. The difficulty lies not only in generating and organizing ideas, but also in translating these ideas into readable text. The skills involved in writing are highly complex. L2 writers have to pay attention to higher level skills of planning and organizing as well as lower skills of spelling, punctuation, word choice and so on. The difficulty then becomes more pronounced if their language proficiency is weak.

 

3. Reasons for Choosing the Topic

Writing is an important language skill. It is a primary subject that must be taught to the students, but developing the students’ writing skill is not an easy job for the teacher. The teacher should be able to create or choose a technique or use a medium, which is good for the students.

From the elaboration above, there are several reasons which become the concern of choosing the topic. The reasons are:

1. The mastery of Junior High School students in writing in English is still weak although they have good concept of English in their mind.
2. It is difficult for most English teachers to make their writing class more enjoyable and interesting.
3. By utilizing ICT tools in writing class, it can motivate students as participants to express their ideas, interact actively and develop the writing skill of the students in Junior High School.

 

4. Objectives

Based on the formulated problems above, the following are the objectives of this final proposal:

1. To explain the process of utilizing ICT in developing the writing skill to the Junior High School students.
2. To find out the advantages of utilizing ICT in developing the writing skill to the Junior High School students.

 

 

5. Review of Related Literature

The review of related literature in this study will include the definition of communicative language teaching, Information and Communication Technology, and teaching writing.

 

5.1 Communicative Languange Teaching

Communicative language teaching can be understood as a set of principlesabout the goals of language teaching, how learners learn a language, the kinds of classroom activities that best facilitate learning, and the roles of teachersand learners in the classroom. Communicative language teaching sets as its goal the teaching of communicative competence. What does this term mean? Perhaps we can clarify this term by first comparing it with the concept of grammatical competence. Grammatical competence refers to the knowledge we have of a language that accounts for our ability to produce sentences in a language. It refers to knowledge of the building blocks of sentences (e.g., parts of speech, tenses, phrases, clauses, sentence patterns) and how sentences are formed. Grammatical competence is the focus of many grammar practice books, which typically present a rule of grammar on one page, and provide exercises to practice using the rule on the other page. The unit of analysis and practice is typically the sentence. While grammatical competence is an important dimension of language learning, it is clearly not all that is involved in learning a language since one can master the rules of sentence formation in a language and still not be very successful at being able to use the language for meaningful communication. It is the latter capacity which is understood by the term communicative competence. Communicative competence includes the following aspects of language knowledge:

1. Knowing how to use language for a range of different purposes and functions
2. Knowing how to vary our use of language according to the setting and the participants (e.g., knowing when to use formal and informal speech or when to use language appropriately for written as opposed to spoken communication)
3. Knowing how to produce and understand different types of texts (e.g., narratives, reports, interviews, conversations)
4. Knowing how to maintain communication despite having limitations in one’s language knowledge (e.g., through using different kinds of communication strategies)

Since the 1990s, the communicative approach has been widely implemented. Because it describes a set of very general principles grounded in the notion of communicative competence as the goal of second and foreign language teaching, and a communicative syllabus and methodology as the way of achieving this goal, communicative language teaching has continued to evolve as our understanding of the processes of second language learning has developed. Current communicative language teaching theory and practice thus draws on a number of different educational paradigms and traditions. And since it draws on a number of diverse sources, there is no single or agreed upon set of practices that characterize current communicative language teaching. Rather, communicative language teaching today refers to a set of generally agreed upon principles that can be applied in different ways, depending on the teaching context, the age of the learners, their level, their learning goals, and so on. The following core assumptions or variants of them underlie current practices in communicative language teaching.

Ten Core Assumptions of Current Communicative Language Teaching

1. Second language learning is facilitated when learners are engaged in interaction and meaningful communication.

2. Effective classroom learning tasks and exercises provide opportunities for students to negotiate meaning, expand their language resources, notice how language is used, and take part in meaningful interpersonal exchange.

3. Meaningful communication results from students processing content that is relevant, purposeful, interesting, and engaging.

4. Communication is a holistic process that often calls upon the use of several language skills or modalities.

5. Language learning is facilitated both by activities that involve inductive or discovery learning of underlying rules of language use and organization, as well as by those involving language analysis and reflection.

6. Language learning is a gradual process that involves creative use of language, and trial and error. Although errors are a normal product of learning, the ultimate goal of learning is to be able to use the new language both accurately and fluently.

7. Learners develop their own routes to language learning, progress at different rates, and have different needs and motivations for language learning.

8. Successful language learning involves the use of effective learning and communication strategies.

9. The role of the teacher in the language classroom is that of a facilitator, who creates a classroom climate conducive to language learning and provides opportunities for students to use and practice the language and to reflect on language use and language learning.

10. The classroom is a community where learners learn through collaboration and sharing.

 

5.2  Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

            ICT is one of the most common words we encounter in our everyday lives. Some of us might conjure an image of computer, internet, or communication gadgets as we heard of ICT. Experts and scholars have tried to define what ICT means, however, there is not a universally accepted definition of ICT as its concepts, methods and applications concerning it are constantly develop and change around the clock. ICT is an acronim which stands for Information and Communication Technology. As we can see, the term ICT consists of three different but closely related components.

1. Information

Information means a processed data in a meaningful  and purposeful form (Shore 1988 : 22). In relation with language learning, information is the object which we acquaire, transmit, and exchange to get the most benefit of it.

1. Communication

Levis (1966 : 6) defines communication as “interraction process between comunicator and communicant (interlocutor). Comunicator gives message to the communicant in a certain limited time and space by a certain media and method.” Whereas Hubbley (1993 : 45) states that “communication involves the transfer between people of information including ideas, emotions, knowledge and skills”. Skortu (2002) asserts that laguage learning means learning how to communicate in one or many languages when receiving, transmitting, and sharing information.

1. Technology

‘Technology’ derived from a word ‘techno’ which means technique, art or skill, and ‘logos’ which means science. Therefore, technology can be defined as a scientific knowledge of art or skill. Zen (in ffendi 2003 : 99) explains that technology comprises science or knowledge and engineering. The component of technology is related to language learning in term of learning environment and the tools/means used. ICT has added a different variable to communication, i.e. a different form of

communication and a diferent form of literacy or literacies (Skortu. 2002).

 

ICT in education point of view refers to “Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) such as computing, communications facilities and features that variously support teaching, learning, and a range of activities in education. (QCA Schemes of Work for ICT in Kent County Council. 2004). Ict can be defined as a way, media, or technology to store, retrieve, manipulate, transmit or receive digital data or information. In addition, it is also concered with the way these different uses can collaborate each other. Hence, information and communication technology (ICT) may be defined as technology functioning to support the process of conveying information and communication especially in education areas.

 

5.3  Teaching Writing

 

A. Writing as means of communication

“…writing will be used as a generic term to refer to all the various activities that involves transferring thought through paper. Writing that focuses primarily on the conventions of language form, i.e. grammatical or lexical structures will be termed transcription. The term composition will refer to the skills involved in effectively developing and communicating an idea or making a point.”

(Dvorak quoted in Lee & Vanpatten, 1995, p. 214)

So, what have you written in your language so far ? Maybe you have thought that you have not written anything in the past week.

But in fact, you have written a lot. Maybe you have written a shopping list, a postcard, a birthday card, some emails, your diary, or maybe a story. If you are studying, perhaps you have written an essay. All of these examples of written text types. You can see from this list that text types involve different kinds of writing, e.g. single words only, short sentences or long sentences, paragraphs, special layouts , etc that show different ways of ordering information. When we learn to write, we need to learn how to deal with these different features. All written text types have two things in common. Firstly, they are written to communicate a particular message, and secondly, they are written to communicate to somebody. Our message and who we are writing to influence what we write and how we write. For example, if you write a note to yourself to remind yourself to do something, you may write in terrible handwriting and use note form or single words that other people would not understand. If you write a note for your friend to remind him/ her of something, your note will probably be clearer and a bit more polite. Writing is transforming thoughts into language; it means that we need to think about the content of our writing first and then arrange the ideas using appropriate language (e.g. grammar and vocabulary). Consequently we must learn about organizational skills in writing. Writing involves several sub-skills. Some of these are related to accuracy, i.e. using the correct forms of language. Writing accurately involves spelling correctly, forming letters correctly, writing legibly, punctuating correctly, using correct layouts, choosing the right vocabulary, using grammar correctly, joining sentences correctly and using paragraphs correctly. However, writing is not just about accuracy. It is also about having a message and communicating it successfully to other people. To do this, we need to have enough ideas, organize them well and express them in an appropriate style.

 

B. Why teaching writing

Harmer (1998, p. 79) describes that the reasons for teaching writing to students of English as a foreign language include reinforcement, language development, learning style and, most important, writing as a skill in its own right

1. Reinforcement

Some students acquire a language in a purely oral/ aural way, but others benefit greatly from seeing the language written down. The visual demonstration of language construction is invaluable for both their understanding of how it all fits together and as an aid to committing the new language shortly after they have studied it . In other words, writing reinforces the grammatical structures, idioms and vocabulary that students have learned.

2. Language development

The actual process of writing helps students in acquiring a language because that they will use to express the ideas. This mental activity that students go through in order to construct proper written texts is all part of ongoing learning experience. Thus, the relationship between writing and thinking makes writing a valuable part of any language courses

3. Learning style

Some students are good at picking up language just by looking and listening. Others need time to think and to produce a language in a slower way to reflect what they have learned

4. Writing as a skill

The most important reason for teaching writing is that it is a basic language skill, just as important as speaking, listening and reading. Students need to know how to write letter, how to put written reports together, they need to know some of writing’s special convention such as punctuation, paragraph construction, etc just as the need to know how to pronounce spoken English appropriately It could be said that writing is an important language skill. It is a productive skill that shows how skillful the student is in writing and discovers the talented students in this field. In addition, writing is a way that a student can express his ideas or thoughts on the paper.

In conclusion, writing is an activity that supports students to analyze and synthesize their discrete knowledge about language items into a text that is acceptable in an English writing convention by using the appropriate paragraph structure. Hence to be able to write students must write.

 

C. Principles of teaching writing

Bryne (1988) suggests the principles for teaching writing with the following points:

1. Teach students to write

Classroom writing tasks need to be set up in ways that reflect the writing process in good writers. We need to encourage our students to go through a process of planning, organizing, composing, and revising.

2. Provide adequate and relevant experience of the written language

Care is needed in the selection of text types for both reading and writing, always

bearing in mind that students can usually read language that is more advanced

than they can produce.

3. Show students how the written language function as a system of communication

When setting writing tasks, teachers need to vary the audience, identify who the readers are to be, and try to make every piece of writing fulfill some kind of communicative purpose, either real or simulated, when students understand the context they are much likely to write effectively.

4. Teach students how to write texts

Unless you encourage the production of whole texts, you will not have the opportunity to teach all the important features that can help to make a text coherent.

5. Teach students different kinds of texts.

Students need opportunities to practice various forms and functions in writing and within these to develop the different skills involved in producing written texts.

6. Make writing tasks realistic and relevant

Classroom writing tasks should reflect the ultimate goal of enabling students to write whole texts which form connected, conceptualized, and appropriate pieces of communication.

7. Integrate writing with other skills

It will be better if teachers design a task or activities in which we integrate writing with other skills. For example when we ask students to listen to an English song, we can provide a worksheet in which the students will try to complete the missing words.

8. Use a variety of techniques and practice formats.

Teachers need to provide various writing activities from the controlled writing to the guided writing until free writing. Each activity will need different techniques and practice. Collaborative writing in the classroom generates discussions and activities which encourage an effective process of writing.

9. Provide appropriate support

The process of marking, with its traditional focus on error-correction by the teacher needs review and modification into a range of activities involving students as well s teachers, thus making revision an integral part of the process of writing. Students need time in the classroom for writing. The teacher’s task is to select or design activities which support them through the process of producing a piece of writing.

 

6. Analysis of The Study

 

a). Advantages of Using ICT in Writing Class

1. Motivating Factor.

The Internet can act as a motivating tool for many students. Young people are very captivated with technology. Educators must capitalize on this interest, excitement, and enthusiasm about the Internet for the purpose of enhancing learning. For already enthusiastic learners, the Internet allows you to provide them with additional learning activities not readily available in the classroom.

2. Fast Communication.

The Internet promotes fast communication across geographical barriers. Your students can join collaborative projects that involve students from different states, countries or continents. This type of learning experience was not possible before the Internet. This is a unique learning experience very essential for each of our students, as the world is becoming one big community.

3. Cooperative Learning.

The Internet facilitates cooperative learning, encourages dialogue, and creates a more engaging classroom. For example, a LISTSER V for our class will allow your students to get involved in class discussions through e-mails in a way not possible within the four walls of the classroom.

4. Locating Research Materials.

Apart from communication, research is what takes many people to the Internet. There are many more resources on the Internet than the school library can provide. We can encourage students to take advantage of this wealth of resources on the Internet for their research.

5. Acquiring Varied Writing Skills

If students are required to publish their work on the Internet, they have to develop hypertext skills. These skills help students gain experience in non-sequential writings. Moreover, and since the Internet is open to all with access, students publishing their work on the Internet are forced to be mindful of their language and to write to non-expert audience.

b). Disadvantages of Using ICT in Writing Class

1. Plagiarism.

Apart from Web sites that claim to help students write term papers, there are numerous cases of students downloading information from the Net and turning them in for grades. We can minimize this problem by requiring students to cite research sources.

2. Student Privacy.

Criminals, marketers, and other persons can easily get information from students when they are online. These could post danger to students’ lives or may even lead to litigation against the school. To avoid this problem, students should be educated on the dangers of giving information to people online. Parents and teachers need to supervise students’ online activities.

3. Low Income Groups.

According to the US Department of Education, over 50% of public schools with a high minority enrollment had a lower rate of Internet access than public schools with a low minority enrollment in 1997. The same was true of instructional rooms in those schools. In addition, students from low-income families may not have computers at home or may have computers at home with no access to the Internet. Consequently, students in low-income communities may be disadvantaged. To reduce the effect that social or economic status may have, we should give Internet assignments that students can easily complete while in school. If necessary, schools may need to keep computer labs open for longer and/or odd hours. The use of computers at public libraries should also be encouraged.

4. Preparation Time.

It takes a lot of preparation time to effectively use the Net for education. In addition to designing Internet based lesson plans, we may have to surf the Internet to download lesson plans and adapt them to support the curriculum objectives or visit sites to select those appropriate for classes. We have no choice but prepare in order to help your students become responsible user of the Internet.

7.Summary and Recommendation

In sum, not all lessons can be incorporated into the Internet. In teaching using the ICT, including teaching writing we have to convince that using the Net adds something new, some real value to our teaching. But also, students should be trained to use the available technology efficiently. We should collaborate with other teachers in the school and in the system, because cooperation and mutual understanding is very important especially when the school has few Internet accounts. Through the net, the student can communicate or collaborate with other students or experts in the field across geographically boundaries. Moreover, they can join a news group on a particular topic of interest. What is most interesting about the ICT, as far as communication is concerned, is that it is race, age, national origin, and gender blind. The ICT also enables students to publish projects’ findings to be seen by their peers around the world. This might give some students the motivation they need to complete their work on time, to be mindful of their language. Therefore, every student can benefit from an ICT project.

 

8. Bibliography

 

Hartoyo. ICT in Language Learning. 2012. Semarang : Pelita Insani

 

Izmi,Zakhwan.dkk.Teaching Writing. 2010. Jakarta : Ministry of National Education (Center for Development and Empowerment Language teachers and Education Personnel)

 

John, P. D. and Sutherland, S. 2004. Teaching and learning with ICT: new technology, new pedagogy? Education, Communication and Information.

 

Moore, Cristoph D. Is ICT being used to its potential toimprove teaching and learning across the curriculum?. 2005.

 

 

Richards, Jack. Communicative Language Teaching Today. 2006. Cambridge University Press

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_and_communications_technology (retrieved at July 14, 2012, 08.10 PM)

 

http://miraesiwinaya.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-using-ict-for-teaching-and-learning/ (retreived at July 17, 2012, 6.14 AM)

 

 

 

Yaa Rabbi…..

Ajarilah kami bagaimana memberi sebelum meminta,berfikir sebelum bertindak,santun dalam berbicara,tenang ketika gundah,diam ketika emosi melanda,bersabar dalam setiap ujian.Jadikanlah kami orang yg selembut Abu Bakar Ash-Shiddiq,sebijaksana Umar bin Khattab,sedermawan Utsman bin Affan,sepintar Ali bin Abi Thalib,sesederhana Bilal,setegar Khalid bin Walid radliallahu’anhum

Amiin ya Rabbal’alamin.

Duhai kau yang tercipta dari tulang rusukku.Di belahan Bumi manapun kau berada.
Bagiku kau bunga, tak mampu aku samakanmu dengan bunga terindah sekalipun.
Bagiku manusia adalah makhluk yang terindah, tersempurna, dan tertinggi.
Bagiku dirimu salah satu dari semua itu, kerananya kau tak membutuhkan persamaan.
Jangan pernah biarkan aku menatapmu penuh, kerana akan membuatku mengingatmu.
Berarti memenuhi kepalaku dengan inginkanmu.
Berimbas pada tersusunnya gambarmu dalam tiap dinding khayalku.
Membuatku inginkanmu sepenuh hati, seluruh jiwa, sesemangat mentari.
Kasihanilah dirimu jika harus hadir dalam khayalku yang masih penuh Lumpur.
Karena sesungguhnya dirimu terlalu suci.
Berdua menghabiskan waktu denganmu bagaikan mimpi tak berujung.
Ada ingin tapi tak ada henti.Menyentuhmu merupakan ingin diri, berkelebat selalu, meski ujung penutupmu pun tak berani kusentuh.

Jangan pernah kalah dengan mimpi dan inginku karena sucimu kau pertaruhkan.
Mungkin kau tak peduli,
Tapi kau hanya menjadi wanita biasa di hadapanku bila kau kalah..Dan tak lebih dari wanita biasa.

Jangan pernah kau tatapku penuh,
Bahkan tak perlu kau lirikkan matamu untuk melihatku.
Bukan kerana aku terlalu Indah, tapi kerana aku seorang yang masih kotor.
Aku biasa memakai topeng keindahan pada wajah burukku, mengenakan pakaian sutra emas.
Meniru laku para ustadz, meski hatiku lebih kotor dari lumpur.
Kau memang suci tapi masih sangat mungkin kau termanipulasi..Kerana toh kau hanya manusia – hanya wanita.

Beri sepenuh diri pada Sang Lelaki suci yang dengan sepenuh hati membawamu ke hadapan Tuhanmu.
Untuknya dirimu ada, itu kata otakku, terukir dalam kitab suci, tak perlu dipikir lagi.
Tunggu Sang Lelaki itu menjemputmu, dalam rangkaian khitbah dan akad yang indah.
Atau kejar Sang Lelaki suci itu, kerana itu adalah hakmu, seperti dicontohkan Ibunda Khadijah.
Jangan ada ragu, jangan ada malu, semua terukir dalam kitab suci.

Bariskan harapanmu pada Istikharah sepenuh hati ikhlas.
Relakan Allah pilihkan lelaki suci untukmu, mungkin sekarang atau nanti bahkan mungkin tak ada sampai kau mati.
Mungkin itu berarti dirimu terlalu suci untuk semua lelaki di fana saat ini.
Mungkin lelaki suci itu menanti di Istana kekalmu, yang kau bangun dengan segala kekhusyu’an tangis do’amu.
Pilihan Allah tak selalu seindah inginmu, tapi itu pilihan_Nya.Tak ada yang lebih baik dari pilihan Allah.

Mungkin kebaikan itu bukan pada lelaki yang terpilih itu, melainkan pada jalan yang kau pilih,seperti kisah seorang wanita suci di masa lalu yang meminta ke-Islam-an sebagai mahar pernikahannya.
Atau mungkin kebaikan itu terletak pada keikhlasanmu menerima keputusan Sang Kekasih Tertinggi.
Kekasih tempat kita memberi semua cinta dan menerima cinta dalam setiap denyut nadi kita.

Disini aku selalu merindumu dlm stiap buTir air mata doa cinta.Membisu dalam diam penantian suci untukmu..untuk jodohku yang masih menjadi rahsia Allah.

Semoga semuakan indah pada masanya…Dalam dakapan hangat cinta_NYA.sebelum engkau halal bagiku,Aku tidak ingin mencintaimu aku takut Allah cemburu padamu,aku tidak ingin menuntut apa2 darimu,kerana aku tahu aku bukan siapa2 untukmu aku bukan orang baik tapi aku ingin berbuat baik agar aku pantas untuk engkau jodohku yg baik,engkau yang dipilih Allah yang sudah ditulis dalam Lauh Mahfudz semoga engkau bisa membimbingku dengan mencintaimu,namun tak melebihi cinta ku pada Allah,aku adalah tulang rusukmu yg bengkok maka berhati-hatilah denganku,aku bisa saja terus membengkok jika engkau tidak mengajarkan ku kepada apa2 yg ma’ruf menurut Allah..

Rasullulah SAW bersabda “Nasihatilah perempuan dengan cara yang baik! Perempuan itu diciptakan dari tulang rusuk, sementara yang paling bengkok itu bahagian teratasnya.

Jika engkau berkeras meluruskannya, ia akan patah. Tetapi jika engkau membiarkannya, ia akan bengkok selamanya. Maka nasihatilah perempuan dengan cara yang baik!” (HR Bukhari, Muslim, Ibnu Abi Syaibah, dan Baihaqi)

Aku bisa menjadi lurus andai engkau mau mengajakku kpd kebajikan,semoga engkau hadir disaat yg tepat..Sebelum Engkau Halal Bagiku…aku selalu merindumu dalam setiap butir air mata doa2 cinta ku,Membisu dalam diam penantian suci ku untukmu..

Duhai Yang ALLAH pilihkan untukku.Semoga semua Kan indah pada masanya…Dalam dakapan hangat cintaNYA..kuyakin Andainya kaulah jodohku yang tertulis di Lauhul Mahfuz,Allah pasti akan menanamkan rasa kasih dalam hatiku juga hatimu. Itu janji Allah.Akan tetapi, selagi kita tidak diikat dengan ikatan yang Halal, selagi itu jangan dibazirkan perasaan itu, kerana kita masih tidak mempunyai hak untuk berbuat begitu.
Juga jangan melampaui batas yang telah Allah tetapkan.. ku amat takut Allah murka terhadapku..

Rasulullah saw. bersabda: Sesungguhnya Allah itu cemburu dan orang yang beriman juga cemburu. Kecemburuan Allah, yaitu jika orang mukmin melakukan apa yang diharamkan. (Hadis riwayat Abu Hurairah ra.,)

Ku kan tetap menantimu dengan segenap jiwa dan ragaku.. Ku kan menjaganya untukmu..

Bagi Ku cinta kerana Allah tak kan pernah sia-sia kerana hanya janji_NYA lah yang pasti,

“Wanita-wanita yang keji adalah untuk laki-laki yang keji, dan laki-laki yang keji adalah buat wanita-wanita yang keji (pula), dan wanita-wanita yang baik adalah untuk laki-laki yang baik dan laki-laki yang baik adalah untuk wanita-wanita yang baik (pula).”(An Nur : 26).

 disadur dari sebuah situs dari hati_awal Juli 2012

Language Teaching Approaches

In “Language Teaching Approaches: An Overview,” Celce-Muria gives some historical background then outlines the principal approaches to second and foreign language teaching that were used during the twentieth century. She previews the book as a whole and projects some trends for language instruction in the new millennium.

INTRODUCTION

The field of second (foreign) language teaching has undergone many fluctuations and shifts over the years. Different from physics or chemistry, in which progress is more or less steady until a major discovery causes a radical theoretical revision (Kuhn 1970), language teaching is a field in which fads and heroes have come and gone in a manner fairly consistent with the kinds of changes that occur in youth culture.

Pre-twentieth-Century Trends:

A Brief Survey

Prior to the twentieth century, language teaching methodology vacillated between two types of approaches: getting learners to use a language versus getting learners to analyze a language.

Both the classical Greek and medieval Latin periods were characterized by an emphasis on teaching people to use foreign languages. The classical languages, first Greek and then Latin, were used as lingua francas. During the Renaissance, the formal study of the grammars of Greek and Latin became popular through the mass production of books made possible by the invention of the printing press. In the case of Latin, it was discovered that the grammar of the classical texts was different from that of the Latin being used as a lingua franca – the letter subsequently being labeled vulgate Latin.

Czech scholar and teacher, who published books about his teaching techniques between 1631-1658, some of the techniques that Comenius (the most famous teacher and methodologist at that time) used and espoused were the following:

–          Use imitation instead of rules to teach a language

–          Have your students repeat after you

–          Use a limited vocabulary initially

–          Help your students practice reading and speaking

–          Teach language through pictures to make it meaningful

By the end of ninetieth century, the Direct method (became very popular in France and Germany), which one more stressed the ability to use rather than to analyze a language as the goal of language instruction, had begun to function as a viable alternative to Grammar-Translation Francois Gouin, a Frenchman, began to publish in 1880 concerning his work with the Direct Method.

Some phoneticians (Henry Sweet, Wilhelm Vietor, and paul Passy), they made some of the first truly scientific contributions to language teaching when they advocated principles such as the following:

–          The spoken form of a language is primary and should be taught first

–          The findings of phonetics should be applied to language teaching

–          Language teachers must have solid training in phonetics

–          Learners should be given phonetic training to establish good speech habits

Nine Twentieth-Century Approaches to Language Teaching

1. Grammar-Translation Approach

It is an extensive of the approach used to teach classical languages to the teaching of modern language.

2. Direct Approach

It is a reaction to the Grammar-Translation Approach and its failure to produce learners who could communicate in the foreign language they had been studying.

3. Reading Approach

It is a reaction to the problems experienced in implementing the Direct Approach.

4. Audiolingualism

It is a reaction to the reading Approach and its lack of emphasis on oral-aural skills. Adds features from the Direct Approach and Behavioral psychology.

5. Oral-Situational Approach

It is a reaction to the reading Approach and its lack of emphasis on oral-aural skills. Adds features from Firthian linguistics and the emerging professional field of language.

6. Cognitive Approach

It is a reaction to the behaviorist features of the Audiolingual Approach; influenced by cognitive psychology and Chomskyan linguistics.

7. Affective-Humanistic Approach

It is a reaction to the general lack of affective considerations in both Audiolingualism and Cognitive Approaches.

8. Comprehension-Based Approach

It is an out-growth of research in first language acquisition at led some language methodologists to assume second foreign language learning is similar to first language acquisition.

SUMMARY OF “A STUDY ON THE READING SKILLS OF EFL UNIVERSITY STUDENTS” ARTICLE

 

 

Studies have shown that EFL students who read a lot seem to acquire English better than those who do not. They do not only imrove their reading abilities, but also improve in using and increasing their English abilities and knowledge. Without getting much exposure to reading materials in class

Reading proficiency is determined by reading skills. Nuttal (1996, pp. 44-124) suggest that there are three major categories as follows :

1. Efficient reading skills are divided into five sub-skills, i.e. identifying the reason for reading, choosing the right material, using the text effectively, making use of all the resources in the text, and improving reading speed (pp. 44-61)
2. Word attack skills consist of three sub-skills : the interpretation of structural and clues (both syntactical and morphological) ; inference from context and the use of dictionary (pp. 62-76).
3. Text attack skills are comprised of eight sub-skills, i.e. : understanding  syntax, recognizing and interpreting cohesive devices, interpreting discourse markers, recognizing functional value, recognizing text organization, recognizing the presuppositions underlying the text, recognizing implications and making inferences, and prediction (pp. 78-124).

METHOD

In doing the data collection, the writers used some steps. The first was to analyze the kinds of reading skills which were taught in Reading One, Reading Two, Reading Three, and Reading Four classes at the department. It was found that in these classes, the students did not learn all the reading skills proposed by Nuttall (1996) and McWhorter (2002).

The second step of the data collection was to develop two reading tests. In developing the tests, the writers used several steps (adopting two reading texts and developing test items based on those reading texts). The third step was to pilote the two reading tests. Next was distributing the reading tests to ten English Department students, and the last was checking and counting the result of both test reading tests.

FINDINGS

No	Kinds of Reading Skills	The Difficulty Level (Percentage)
1	Recognizing Text Organization	72,5 %
2	Paraphrasing	65%
3	Inference from Context	57,5 %
4	Summarizing	47,5%
5	Skimming	42,5%
6	Structural Clues : Morphology (Compund words)	40%
7	Prediction	40%
8	Interpreting Pro-forms	37,5%
9	Interpreting Elliptical Expression	37,5%
10	Structural Clues : Morphology (word parts)	35%
11	Using a Dictionary	30%
12	Interpreting Lexical Cohesion	27,5%
13	Recognizing Implications and Making Inferences	22,5%
14	Distinguishing between Fact and Opnion	17,5%
15	Improving Reading Speed	10%
16	Recognizing Presupposition Underlying the text	10%
17	Scanning	7,5%

 

DISCUSSION

The most  difficult reading skill for these students was recognizing  text organization (72,5%). Perhaps it was because many Indonesian students were not trained to activate recognizing  text organization after they raed a passage. The second most difficult was paraphrasing (65%). It could because they had not fully understood the ideas of the original passage or sentence.

Next was Vocabulary skill (57,5%). Inference from context skill was one of important word attack skill which was needed by the respondents to deal with new or difficult vocabularies (57,5%).

In this study, it was found that there were only three wrong answers (7,5%) from the total respondents’ answers toward scanning skill’s items. It could be assumed that the students did not have much difficulty with this skill. It might be because they had already been trained to use this skill in all reading classes.

The other reading skills which had low difficulty level improving reading speed (10%) and recognizing presupposition underlying the text  (10%). This finding indicated that the respondents were good readers because they were able to read fast and in meaningful chunks.

 

COMMENTS AND THE USEFUL OF THE RESEARCH FOR TEACHERS

This reserach revealed  the most difficult material for the students to learn, that was recognizing the organization of the text. Through this research, teachers are supposed to create a new method and also increase their teaching quality in reading. Because usually many teachers and students underestimate reading skill, and they only think about how to listen, speak and write well in English. They do not think that reading takes important role in English learning. So, it should be emphasized to the students hat reading is not only a matter of read a text of passage, but there are also several aspects that they have to learn and master in order to be  “good readers”.

Meeting 7

Speech Act Theory
(Austin 1955, Searle 1969)

  A logico-philosophic perspective on conversational organization focusing on interpretation rather than the production of utterances in discourse.

  From the basic belief that language is used to perform actions.

  Every utterance can be analyzed as the realization of the speaker’s intent (illocutionary force) to achieve a particular purpose. Neither Austin nor Searle were concerned with the analysis of continuous discourse.

Interactional Sociolinguistics
(Gumperz 1982, Goffman 1959-1981)

Grows out of the work of anthropologists.Centrally concerned with the importance of context in the production and interpretation of discourse.

Units of analysis: grammatical and prosodic features in interactions.

Gumperz demonstrated that interact ants from different socio-cultural backgrounds may “hear” and understand discourse differently according to their interpretation contextualisation cues in discourse. E.g. intonation contours, ‘speaking for another’, alignment, gender.

Ethnography of Communication
(Dell Hymes (1972b, 1974)

Concerned with understanding the social context of linguistic interactions: ‘who says what to whom, when, where. Why, and how’.

Prime unit of analysis: speech event.

Definition: ‘The speech event is to what analysis of verbal interaction what the sentence is to grammar … It represents an extension in the size of the basic analytical unit from the single utterance to stretches of utterances, as well as a shift in focus from … text to … interaction’.

Pragmatics
(Grice 1975, Leech 1983, Levinson 1983)

Formulates conversational behavior in terms of general “principles” rather than rules.

At the base of pragmatic approach is to conversation analysis is Gricean’s co-operative principle (CP).

This principle seeks to account for not only how participants decide what to DO next in conversation, but also how interlocutors go about interpreting what the previous speaker has just done.

This principle is the broken down into specific maxims: Quantity (say only as much as necessary), Quality (try to make your contribution one that is true), Relation (be relevant), and manner (be brief and avoid ambiguity).

Conversation Analysis (CA)

CA identified TCU as the critical units of conversation; it has not specified exactly how a TCU boundary can be recognized in any situation.

Models conversation as infinitely generative turn-taking machine, where interactants try to avoid lapse: the possibility that no one is speaking.

Contribution: the identification of ‘adjacency pairs’: conversational relatedness operating between adjacent utterances.

Variation Analysis
(Labov 1972a, Labov and Waletzky1967)

 L & W argue that fundamental narrative structures are evident in spoken narratives of personal experience.

 The overall structure of fully formed narrative of personal experience involves six stages: 1) Abstract,

2) Orientation, 3) Complication, 4) Evaluation, 5) Resolution, 6) Coda, where 1) and 6) are optional.

  Strength: its clarity and applicability.

Communicative Language Teaching

1. A.     Traditional Approaches (up to the late 1960s)

Traditional approaches to language teaching gave priority to grammatical competence as the basis of language proficiency. They were based on the belief that grammar could be learned through direct instruction and through a methodology that made much use of repetitive practice and drilling.

The approach to the teaching of grammar was a deductive one: students are presented with grammar rules and then given opportunities to practice using them, as opposed to an inductive approach in which students are given examples of sentences containing a grammar rule and asked to work out the rule for themselves. It was assumed that language learning meant building up a large repertoire of sentences and grammatical patterns and learning to produce these accurately and quickly in the appropriate situation. Once a basic command of the language was established through oral drilling and controlled practice, the

four skills were introduced, usually in the sequence of speaking, listening, reading and writing.

Techniques that were often employed included memorization of dialogs, question-and answer practice, substitution drills, and various forms of guided speaking and writing practice. Great attention to accurate pronunciation and accurate mastery of grammar was stressed from the very beginning stages of language learning, since it was assumed that if students made errors, these would quickly become a permanent part of the learner’s speech.

Methodologies based on these assumptions include Audiolingualism (in North America) (also known as the Aural-Oral Method), and the Structural-Situational Approach in the United Kingdom (also known as Situational Language Teaching). Syllabuses during this period consisted of word lists and grammar lists, graded across levels.

In a typical audiolingual lesson, the following procedures would be

observed:

1. Students first hear a model dialog (either read by the teacher or on tape) containing key structures that are the focus of the lesson. They repeat each line of the dialog, individually and in chorus. The teacher pays attention to pronunciation, intonation, and fluency. Correction of mistakes of pronunciation or grammar is direct and immediate. The dialog is memorized gradually, line by line. A line may be broken down into several phrases if necessary. The dialog is read aloud in chorus, one half saying one speaker’s part and the other half responding. The students do not consult their book throughout this phase.

2. The dialog is adapted to the students’ interest or situation, through changing certain key words or phrases. This is acted out by the students.

3. Certain key structures from the dialog are selected and used as the basis for pattern drills of different kinds. These are first practiced in chorus and then individually. Some grammatical explanation may be offered at this point, but this is kept to an absolute

minimum.

4. The students may refer to their textbook, and follow-up reading, writing, or vocabulary activities based on the dialog may be introduced.

5. Follow-up activities may take place in the language laboratory, where further dialog and drill work is carried out.

(Richards and Rodgers 2001, 64–65)

 

1. B.      Classic Communicative Language Teaching (1970s to 1990s)

In the 1970s, a reaction to traditional language teaching approaches began and soon spread around the world as older methods such as Audiolingualism and Situational Language Teaching fell out of fashion. The centrality of grammar in language teaching and learning was questioned, since it was argued that language ability involved much more than grammatical competence. While grammatical competence was needed to produce grammatically correct sentences, attention shifted to the knowledge and skills needed to use grammar and other aspects of language appropriately for different communicative purposes such as making requests, giving advice, making suggestions, describing wishes and needs, and so on. What was needed in order to use language communicatively was communicative competence. This was a broader concept than that of grammatical competence, and as we saw in Chapter 1, included knowing what to say and how to say it appropriately based on the situation, the participants, and their roles and intentions. Traditional grammatical and vocabulary syllabuses and teaching methods did not include information of this kind. It was assumed that this kind of knowledge would be picked up informally. The notion of communicative competence was developed within the

discipline of linguistics (or more accurately, the subdiscipline of sociolinguistics) and appealed to many within the language teaching profession, who argued that communicative competence, and not simply grammatical competence, should be the goal of language teaching. The next question to be solved was, what would a syllabus that reflected the notion of communicative competence look like and what implications would it have for language teaching methodology? The result was communicative language teaching. Communicative language teaching created a great deal of enthusiasm and excitement when it first appeared as a new approach to language teaching in the 1970s and 1980s, and language teachers and teaching institutions all around the world soon began to rethink their teaching, syllabuses, and classroom materials. In planning language courses within a communicative approach, grammar was no longer the starting point. New approaches to language teaching were needed.

Rather than simply specifying the grammar and vocabulary learners needed to master, it was argued that a syllabus should identify the following aspects of language use in order to be able to develop the learner’s communicative competence:

1. As detailed a consideration as possible of the purposes for which the learner wishes to acquire the target language; for example, using English for business purposes, in the hotel industry, or for travel.

2. Some idea of the setting in which they will want to use the target language; for example, in an office, on an airplane, or in a store

3. The socially defined role the learners will assume in the target language, as well as the role of their interlocutors; for example, as a traveler, as a salesperson talking to clients, or as a student in a school

4. The communicative events in which the learners will participate: everyday situations, vocational or professional situations, academic situations, and so on; for example, making telephone calls, engaging in casual conversation, or taking part in a meeting

5. The language functions involved in those events, or what the learner will be able to do with or through the language; for example, making introductions, giving explanations, or

describing plans

6. The notions or concepts involved, or what the learner will need to be able to talk about; for example, leisure,finance, history, religion

7. The skills involved in the “knitting together” of discourse: discourse and rhetorical skills; for example, storytelling, giving an effective business presentation

8. The variety or varieties of the target language that will be needed, such as American, Australian, or British English, and the levels in the spoken and written language which the learners will need to reach

 9. The grammatical content that will be needed

10. The lexical content, or vocabulary, that will be needed

(van Ek and Alexander 1980)

 

1. C.      Current Trends in Communicative Language Teaching

Since the 1990s, the communicative approach has been widely implemented. Because it describes a set of very general principles grounded in the notion of communicative competence as the goal of second and foreign language teaching, and a communicative syllabus and methodology as the way of achieving this goal, communicative language teaching has continued to evolve as our understanding of the processes of second language learning has developed. Current communicative language teaching theory and practice thus draws on a number of different educational paradigms and traditions. And since it draws on a number of diverse sources, there is no single or agreed upon set of practices that characterize current communicative language teaching. Rather, communicative language teaching today refers to a set of generally agreed upon principles that can be applied in different ways, depending on the teaching context, the age of the learners, their level, their learning goals, and so on. The following core assumptions or variants of them underlie current practices in communicative language teaching.

Ten Core Assumptions of Current Communicative Language Teaching

1. Second language learning is facilitated when learners are engaged in interaction and meaningful communication.

2. Effective classroom learning tasks and exercises provide opportunities for students to negotiate meaning, expand their language resources, notice how language is used, and take part in meaningful interpersonal exchange.

3. Meaningful communication results from students processing content that is relevant, purposeful, interesting, and engaging.

4. Communication is a holistic process that often calls upon the use of several language skills or modalities.

5. Language learning is facilitated both by activities that involve inductive or discovery learning of underlying rules of language use and organization, as well as by those involving language analysis and reflection.

6. Language learning is a gradual process that involves creative use of language, and trial and error. Although errors are a normal product of learning, the ultimate goal of learning is to be able to use the new language both accurately and fluently.

7. Learners develop their own routes to language learning, progress at different rates, and have different needs and motivations for language learning.

8. Successful language learning involves the use of effective learning and communication strategies.

9. The role of the teacher in the language classroom is that of a facilitator, who creates a classroom climate conducive to language learning and provides opportunities for students to use and practice the language and to reflect on language use and language learning.

10. The classroom is a community where learners learn through collaboration and sharing.

 

(Source : C. Richards, Jack. Communicative Language Teaching Today. 2006. Cambridge University Press)

Sex, Pliteness, and Stereotypes

Niam Nur M. (2201409041)

405-406

Topics in Applied Linguistics

 

Sex, Politeness, and Stereotypes

 

1. Women’s Language and confidence

Social  dialect research focused on differences betwen women’s and men’s speech in the areas of pronounciation (such as [in] vs [iɧ]) and morphology (such as past tense forms), with some attention to syntatic construction (such as multiple negation). Robert Lakoff shifted the focus of research on gender differences to syntax, semantics, and style. She suggested thet women’s subordinate social status in American society is reflected i the language women use, as well as in the language used about them. Sh identified a number of linguistic features which she claimed were used more often by women than by men, and which in her opinion expressed uncertainty and lack of confidence.

Features of ‘women’s language’.

Lakoff suggested that women’s speech was characterised by linuistic features such as the following :

–          Lexical hedges or fillers, e.g. you know, sort of, well, you see.

–          Tag questions, e.g. she’s very nice, isn’t she?

–          Rising intonation on declaratives, e.g. it’s really good.

–          ‘Empty’ adjectives, e.g. divine, charming, cute.

–          Precise colour terms, e.g. magenta, aquamarine.

–          Intensifiers such as just and so, e.g. I like him so much.

–          ‘Hypercorrect’ grammar, e.g. consistent use of standard verb forms.

–          ‘Super polite’ forms, e.g. indirect request, euphemisms.

–          Avoidance of strog swear words, e.g. fudge, my goodness.

–          Emphatic  stress, e.g. it was a BRILLIANT performance.

 

1. Interraction

There are many features of interraction which differentiate the talk of women and men. Mrs. Fleming’s distinction reflects one of them.

1. Interruptions

In same –sex interractions, interruptions were pretty evenly ditributed between speakers. In cross-sex interactions, almost all the interruptions were fro males. These research followed up this study with one recorded interactions in sound-proof booths in a laboratory. The percentage of male interruptions decreased to 75 percent in this less natural setting, but there was no doubt that men were still doing most of interrupting. In other  contexts too, it has been found that men interrupt others more than women do.

 

1. Feedback

Another aspect of the picture of women as cooperative conversationalist is the evidence that women provide more encouraging feedback to their conversational partners than men do.

In general, then, research on conversational  interaction reveals women as cooperative conversationalists, whereas men tend to be more ompetitive and less supportive of others. Why are women’s patterns of iterraction different from men’s? Is it because they are subordinate in status to men in most communities so that they  must strive to please ? Or are there other explanations ?

 

1. Explanations

In an interesting range of this research, it is quite clearly gender rather than occupational  status, social class, or some other social factors, which most adequately accounts for the interactional patterns described.

 

1. Gossip

Gossip describes the kind of relaxed in-group talk that goes  on between people in informal contexts. In Western society, gossip is defined as ‘idle talk’ and considered particularly characteristic of women’s interaction. Its overall function for women is to affirm solidarity and maintain the social relationships between the women involved.

The male equivalent of women’s gossip is difficult to identify. In parallel situations the topics men discuss tend to focus on things and activities, rather than personal experiences and feelings.  Topics like sports, cars, and possessions turn up regularly. The focus is on in formation and facts rather than on feelings and reactions.

 

1. Sexist language

Sexist language is one example  of the way a culture or society conveys its values from one group to another and from one generation to the next.

Language conveys attitudes. Sexist attitudes stereotype a person according to gender rather than judging on individual merits. Sexist language encodes stereotyped attitudes to women and men. In principle, then, the study of sexist language is concerned with the way language expresses both negative and positive stereotyoes of both women and men. In practice, research in this area has concentrated on the ways in which language conveys negative attitudes to women. 

 

Code Switching

Code-switching is the practice of moving between variations of languages in different contexts. Everyone who speaks has learned to code-switch depending on the situation and setting. In an educational context, code-switching is defined as the practice of switching between a primary and a secondary language or discourse.

History of code-switching

In 1977, Carol Myers-Scotton and William Ury identified code-switching as the “use of two or more linguistic varieties in the same conversation or interaction.”¹ That year, a small group of parents at Martin Luther King Elementary School sued the Ann Arbor School District Board claiming their children were not receiving equal educational opportunities because they were not being taught to use the “Standard English” language.² This case “established the legitimacy of African American Language (AAL) within a legal framework” and mandated the Ann Arbor School District teach children, using their home languages, how to read in the “Standard English”. Later, in 1996, a major lawsuit in California generated the Oakland Ebonics Resolution, which recognized AAL/African American Vernacular English (AAVE) as the primary language of the African American students in the district and required that this language be used to assist those students to acquire and master “Standard English.”

Primarily due to these mandates, sociolinguists began to engage in more thorough research on Black English, AAVE, and AAL and the similarities in structure and grammar to “Standard English.” Subsequently, many large school districts (i.e. Los Angeles, CA) created programs to address the needs of the students who used these dialects in order to facilitate the acquisition of “Standard English.”

Code-Switching with dialects of African American or Black English

Amanda Godley, Julie Sweetland, and Rebecca Wheeler define dialect as “a variety of a language that is associated with a particular regional or social group” and maintain that dialect does not mean “a lesser, informal, or ungrammatical way of speaking.”⁵ The authors propose that scientific research on language “demonstrates that standard dialects are not linguistically better by any objective measures; they are socially preferred simply because they are the language varieties used by those who are most powerful and affluent in a society.” Godley, Sweetland, and Wheeler document several studies that have demonstrated how teachers underestimate or overlook the linguistic abilities of speakers of African American Vernacular English (AAVE), Puerto Rican English, and other vernacular dialects. Even though researchers have documented the extent of such students’ linguistic repertoires and their awareness of code-switching and style-shifting in various social contexts, they are still looked upon negatively by many educators. Furthermore, those teachers who have a negative opinion of students who use AAVE or other vernacular English dialects often contribute to those students’ oppositional view of schooling.

Deric Greene and Felicia Walker maintain that “[Code-switching] can involve the alternation between two different languages, two tonal registers, or a dialectical shift within the same language such as Standard English and Black English.”Greene and Walker also argue that code-switching is “a linguistic tool and a sign of the participants’ awareness of alternative communicative conventions. Furthermore, code-switching has been described as “a strategy at negotiating power for the speaker” and “reflects culture and identity and promotes solidarity.”

In the nation’s public schools, standardized test scores consistently reveal that African American students are performing at significantly lower rates than their white peers. Rebecca Wheeler and Rachel Swords contend that these students are failing the tests not because of the content of the tests, but “because they experience great difficulties understanding the language of the test questions.” African American children often speak in vernacular English and do not realize the differences between the patterns of how they speak and those of “Standard English.”

Rebecca Wheeler suggests that teaching through a traditional language arts lens treats African American and other language minority students as being in the deficit paradigm. “An insight from linguistics offers a way out of this labyrinth: Students using vernacular language are not making errors, but instead are speaking or writing correctly following the language patterns of their community.”

Code-switching in Practice

Language response: The correctionist approach

Rebecca Wheeler and Rachel Swords contend that the correctionist approach to language response “diagnoses the child’s home speech as ‘poor English’ or ‘bad grammar,’ finding that the child does not know how to show plurality, possession, and tense,’ or the child ‘has problems’ with these.” This approach assumes that “Standard English” is the only proper form of language and tries to do away with the child’s home language. Because classrooms are not culturally or linguistically monolithic, this approach tends to exclude those students who are not fluent in “Standard English.”

Language response: The contrastivist approach

Wheeler and Swords maintain that the primary principle of the contrastivist approach is that “language comes in diverse varieties.” This “linguistically-informed model” recognizes that the student’s home language is not any more deficient in structure than the school language.¹³ In this approach, teachers “help children become explicitly aware of the grammatical differences” between the formal “Standard English” and the informal home language. “Knowing this, children learn to code-switch between the language of the home and the language of the school as appropriate to the time, place, audience, and communicative purpose.”When an educator prepares a student to code-switch, the student becomes explicitly aware of how to select the appropriate language to use in the given context.

How to move from corrective to contrastive

Based on the research Wheeler and Swords conducted with classroom teachers, they recommend methods for moving from the corrective approach of language response to the contrastive response:

• Recognize the vernacular patterns in writing and use this to teach a whole class lesson on the differences between the “Standard English” version and the home language. Maybe use a chart to show the differences.
• Initiate conversations about how people speak differently in diverse settings.
• Engage students in a role-playing activity where they imitate different people they know within the community, and have students examine the differences in the way these people speak.
• Demonstrate how to self-correct written work for a formal purpose, and when students feel more comfortable, encourage them to read their work aloud.
• Try to be more accepting of the fact that everyone code-switches. Remember the way we respond to a friend’s question might be completely different than how we would answer the principal or superintendent’s queries.
• Introduce dialectical language through literature. Culturally rich literature is available at every grade level.

Additionally, Greene and Walker suggest that in order to create an inclusive environment for African American students, teachers might want to “redesign the learning environment so that it responds to diverse learners; promote leadership and pro-social skill development; consider the social and emotional issues of African American learners; teach code-switching; and partner with professionals, students, families, and the community to contribute to the overall learning experience.”¹⁵ Teachers can also explain to students that they must learn to negotiate “Standard” and Black English in order to “broaden their linguistic skills and function within society.” Teachers must be more “sensitive and enlightened to ethnicities” in order to better facilitate successful social growth in their students.

Greene and Walker also recommend not taking for granted that students and teachers set clear expectations for navigating between “Standard” and Black English and suggest that teachers take engage in the following practices:

• Make certain teacher goals are communicated in a clear manner and that the students understand those goals.
• Explain how and when certain language usage is or is not appropriate.
• Make sure students understand how certain contexts require code-switching.
• Demonstrate code-switching in the classroom.
• Affirm for students that their language is viable and valuable.
• Make sure students understand that you understand the historical importance of their language.
• Study the historical development of Black English and “Standard English.”
• Develop culturally reflective assignments and activities with a focus on diversity. (For example: assigning students to give a tribute speech on someone in their home community in the dialect or language in which the person would speak.)

Teaching students to code switch is more of a learner-centered approach to teaching. This type of approach to learning also fits the standardized testing model because teachers demonstrate for students how to interpret a standardized test, which can sometimes be written in what appears as a foreign language.

 

Code-switching is the practice of moving between variations of languages in different contexts. Everyone who speaks has learned to code-switch depending on the situation and setting. In an educational context, code-switching is defined as the practice of switching between a primary and a secondary language or discourse.

History of code-switching

In 1977, Carol Myers-Scotton and William Ury identified code-switching as the “use of two or more linguistic varieties in the same conversation or interaction.”¹ That year, a small group of parents at Martin Luther King Elementary School sued the Ann Arbor School District Board claiming their children were not receiving equal educational opportunities because they were not being taught to use the “Standard English” language.² This case “established the legitimacy of African American Language (AAL) within a legal framework” and mandated the Ann Arbor School District teach children, using their home languages, how to read in the “Standard English”. Later, in 1996, a major lawsuit in California generated the Oakland Ebonics Resolution, which recognized AAL/African American Vernacular English (AAVE) as the primary language of the African American students in the district and required that this language be used to assist those students to acquire and master “Standard English.”

Primarily due to these mandates, sociolinguists began to engage in more thorough research on Black English, AAVE, and AAL and the similarities in structure and grammar to “Standard English.” Subsequently, many large school districts (i.e. Los Angeles, CA) created programs to address the needs of the students who used these dialects in order to facilitate the acquisition of “Standard English.”

Code-Switching with dialects of African American or Black English

Amanda Godley, Julie Sweetland, and Rebecca Wheeler define dialect as “a variety of a language that is associated with a particular regional or social group” and maintain that dialect does not mean “a lesser, informal, or ungrammatical way of speaking.”⁵ The authors propose that scientific research on language “demonstrates that standard dialects are not linguistically better by any objective measures; they are socially preferred simply because they are the language varieties used by those who are most powerful and affluent in a society.” Godley, Sweetland, and Wheeler document several studies that have demonstrated how teachers underestimate or overlook the linguistic abilities of speakers of African American Vernacular English (AAVE), Puerto Rican English, and other vernacular dialects. Even though researchers have documented the extent of such students’ linguistic repertoires and their awareness of code-switching and style-shifting in various social contexts, they are still looked upon negatively by many educators. Furthermore, those teachers who have a negative opinion of students who use AAVE or other vernacular English dialects often contribute to those students’ oppositional view of schooling.

Deric Greene and Felicia Walker maintain that “[Code-switching] can involve the alternation between two different languages, two tonal registers, or a dialectical shift within the same language such as Standard English and Black English.”Greene and Walker also argue that code-switching is “a linguistic tool and a sign of the participants’ awareness of alternative communicative conventions. Furthermore, code-switching has been described as “a strategy at negotiating power for the speaker” and “reflects culture and identity and promotes solidarity.”

In the nation’s public schools, standardized test scores consistently reveal that African American students are performing at significantly lower rates than their white peers. Rebecca Wheeler and Rachel Swords contend that these students are failing the tests not because of the content of the tests, but “because they experience great difficulties understanding the language of the test questions.” African American children often speak in vernacular English and do not realize the differences between the patterns of how they speak and those of “Standard English.”

Rebecca Wheeler suggests that teaching through a traditional language arts lens treats African American and other language minority students as being in the deficit paradigm. “An insight from linguistics offers a way out of this labyrinth: Students using vernacular language are not making errors, but instead are speaking or writing correctly following the language patterns of their community.”

Code-switching in Practice

Language response: The correctionist approach

Rebecca Wheeler and Rachel Swords contend that the correctionist approach to language response “diagnoses the child’s home speech as ‘poor English’ or ‘bad grammar,’ finding that the child does not know how to show plurality, possession, and tense,’ or the child ‘has problems’ with these.” This approach assumes that “Standard English” is the only proper form of language and tries to do away with the child’s home language. Because classrooms are not culturally or linguistically monolithic, this approach tends to exclude those students who are not fluent in “Standard English.”

Language response: The contrastivist approach

Wheeler and Swords maintain that the primary principle of the contrastivist approach is that “language comes in diverse varieties.” This “linguistically-informed model” recognizes that the student’s home language is not any more deficient in structure than the school language.¹³ In this approach, teachers “help children become explicitly aware of the grammatical differences” between the formal “Standard English” and the informal home language. “Knowing this, children learn to code-switch between the language of the home and the language of the school as appropriate to the time, place, audience, and communicative purpose.”When an educator prepares a student to code-switch, the student becomes explicitly aware of how to select the appropriate language to use in the given context.

How to move from corrective to contrastive

Based on the research Wheeler and Swords conducted with classroom teachers, they recommend methods for moving from the corrective approach of language response to the contrastive response:

• Recognize the vernacular patterns in writing and use this to teach a whole class lesson on the differences between the “Standard English” version and the home language. Maybe use a chart to show the differences.
• Initiate conversations about how people speak differently in diverse settings.
• Engage students in a role-playing activity where they imitate different people they know within the community, and have students examine the differences in the way these people speak.
• Demonstrate how to self-correct written work for a formal purpose, and when students feel more comfortable, encourage them to read their work aloud.
• Try to be more accepting of the fact that everyone code-switches. Remember the way we respond to a friend’s question might be completely different than how we would answer the principal or superintendent’s queries.
• Introduce dialectical language through literature. Culturally rich literature is available at every grade level.

Additionally, Greene and Walker suggest that in order to create an inclusive environment for African American students, teachers might want to “redesign the learning environment so that it responds to diverse learners; promote leadership and pro-social skill development; consider the social and emotional issues of African American learners; teach code-switching; and partner with professionals, students, families, and the community to contribute to the overall learning experience.”¹⁵ Teachers can also explain to students that they must learn to negotiate “Standard” and Black English in order to “broaden their linguistic skills and function within society.” Teachers must be more “sensitive and enlightened to ethnicities” in order to better facilitate successful social growth in their students.

Greene and Walker also recommend not taking for granted that students and teachers set clear expectations for navigating between “Standard” and Black English and suggest that teachers take engage in the following practices:

• Make certain teacher goals are communicated in a clear manner and that the students understand those goals.
• Explain how and when certain language usage is or is not appropriate.
• Make sure students understand how certain contexts require code-switching.
• Demonstrate code-switching in the classroom.
• Affirm for students that their language is viable and valuable.
• Make sure students understand that you understand the historical importance of their language.
• Study the historical development of Black English and “Standard English.”
• Develop culturally reflective assignments and activities with a focus on diversity. (For example: assigning students to give a tribute speech on someone in their home community in the dialect or language in which the person would speak.)

Teaching students to code switch is more of a learner-centered approach to teaching. This type of approach to learning also fits the standardized testing model because teachers demonstrate for students how to interpret a standardized test, which can sometimes be written in what appears as a foreign language.

 

Discourse Analysis

. DEFINITION OF DISCOURSE

Since its introduction to modern science the term ‘discourse’ has taken various, sometimes very broad, meanings. In order to specify which of the numerous senses is analyzed in the following dissertation it has to be defined. Originally the word ‘discourse’ comes from Latin ‘discursus‘ which denoted ‘conversation, speech’. Thus understood, however, discourse refers to too wide an area of human life, therefore only discourse from the vantage point of linguistics, and especially applied linguistics, is explained here.

There is no agreement among linguists as to the use of the term discourse in that some use it in reference to texts, while others claim it denotes speech which is for instance illustrated by the following definition: “Discourse: a continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as a sermon, argument, joke, or narrative” (Crystal 1992:25). On the other hand Dakowska, being aware of differences between kinds of discourses indicates the unity of communicative intentions as a vital element of each of them. Consequently she suggests using terms ‘text’ and ‘discourse’ almost interchangeably betokening the former refers to the linguistic product, while the latter implies the entire dynamics of the processes (Dakowska 2001:81). According to Cook (1990:7) novels, as well as short conversations or groans might be equally rightfully named discourses.

Seven criteria which have to be fulfilled to qualify either a written or a spoken text as a discourse have been suggested by Beaugrande (1981). These include:

• Cohesion – grammatical relationship between parts of a sentence essential for its interpretation;
• Coherence – the order of statements relates one another by sense.
• Intentionality – the message has to be conveyed deliberately and consciously;
• Acceptability – indicates that the communicative product needs to be satisfactory in that the audience approves it;
• Informativeness – some new information has to be included in the discourse;
• Situationality – circumstances in which the remark is made are important;
• Intertextuality – reference to the world outside the text or the interpreters’ schemata;

Nowadays, however, not all of the above mentioned criteria are perceived as equally important in discourse studies, therefore some of them are valid only in certain methods of the research (Beaugrande 1981, cited in Renkema 2004:49).

• Features of discourse.

Since it is not easy to unambiguously clarify what a discourse is it seems reasonable to describe features which are mutual to all its kinds. To do it thoroughly Saussurean concepts of langue and parole are of use. Ferdinand de Saussure divided the broad meaning of language into langue, which is understood as a system that enables people to speak as they do, and parole – a particular set of produced statements. Following this division discourse relates more to parole, for it always occurs in time and is internally characterized by successively developing expressions in which the meaning of the latter is influenced by the former, while langue is abstract. To list some additional traits: discourse is always produced by somebody whose identity, as well as the identity of the interpreter, is significant for the proper understanding of the message. On the other hand langue is impersonal that is to say more universal, due to society. Furthermore, discourse always happens in either physical, or linguistic context and within a meaningful fixed time, whereas langue does not refer to anything. Consequently, only discourse may convey messages thanks to langue which is its framework (1).

1.2 Types of discourse

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 (Cook 1990:156). One of such divisions, known as the Organon model, distinguishes three types of discourse depending of the aspect of language emphasized in the text. If the relation to the context is prevailing, it conveys some knowledge

thus it is an informative type of discourse. 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 (Renkema 2004:64).

1.2.1 Written and spoken discourse

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 (Crystal 1995:291, Dakowska 2001:07).

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, or charts which can be portrayed only in written form (Crystal 1995:291).

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.

• Discourse expressed formally and informally.

The difference in construction and reception of language was the basis of its conventional distinction into speaking and writing. Nevertheless, when the structure of discourse is taken into consideration more essential division into formal and informal communicative products gains importance. Formal discourse is more strict in that it requires the use of passive voice, lack of contracted forms together with impersonality, complex sentence structure and, in the case of the English language, vocabulary derived from Latin. That is why formal spoken language has many features very similar to written texts, particularly absence of vernacular vocabulary and slang, as well as the employment of rhetorical devices to make literary-like impact on the listener.

Informal discourse, on the other hand, makes use of active voice mainly, with personal pronouns and verbs which show feelings such as ‘I think’, ‘we believe’. In addition, contractions are frequent in informal discourse, no matter if it is written or spoken. Consequently it may be said that informal communicative products are casual and loose, while formal ones are more solemn and governed by strict rules as they are meant to be used in official and serious circumstances.

The relation of the producer of the message and its receiver, the amount of addressees and factors such as public or private occasion are the most important features influencing selecting either formal or informal language. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that the contemporary learner, who may easily travel and use his linguistic skills outside class, will encounter mainly informal discourse, which due to its flexibility and unpredictability might be the most difficult to comprehend. Accordingly, it seems rational to teach all varieties of language relying on authentic oral and written texts (Cook 1990:50).

2. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS – ITS ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT

Discourse analysis is a primarily linguistic study examining the use of language by its native population whose major concern is investigating language functions along with its forms, produced both orally and in writing. Moreover, identification of linguistic qualities of various genres, vital for their recognition and interpretation, together with cultural and social aspects which support its comprehension, is the domain of discourse analysis. To put it in another way, the branch of applied linguistics dealing with the examination of discourse attempts to find patterns in communicative products as well as and their correlation with the circumstances in which they occur, which are not explainable at the grammatical level (Carter 1993:23).

2.1 Starting point of discourse analysis

The first modern linguist who commenced the study of relation of sentences and coined the name ‘discourse analysis’, which afterwards denoted a branch of applied linguistics, was Zellig Harris (Cook 1990:13). Originally, however, it was not to be treated as a separate branch of study – Harris proposed extension of grammatical examination which reminded syntactic investigations (2).

The emergence of this study is a result of not only linguistic research, but also of researchers engaged in other fields of inquiry, particularly sociology, psychology, anthropology and psychotherapy (Trappes-Lomax 2004:133). In 1960s and 1970s other scholars, that is philosophers of language or those dealing with pragmatics enormously influenced the development of this study as well. Among other contributors to this field the Prague School of Linguists, whose focusing on organization of information in communicative products indicated the connection of grammar and discourse, along with text grammarians are worth mentioning (McCarthy 1991:6).

A significant contribution to the evolution of discourse analysis has been made by British and American scholars. In Britain the examination of discourse turned towards the study of the social functions of language. Research conveyed at the University of Birmingham fruited in creating a thorough account of communication in various situations such as debates, interviews, doctor-patient relations, paying close attention to the intonation of people participating in talks as well as manners particular to circumstances. Analysis of the factors essential for succession of decently made communication products on the grounds of structural-linguistic criteria was another concern of British scholars. Americans, on the other hand, focused on examining small communities of people and their discourse in genuine circumstances. Apart from that, they concentrated on conversation analysis inspecting narratives in addition to talks and the behavior of speakers as well as patterns repeating in given situations. Division and specification of types of discourse along with social limitations of politeness and thorough description of face saving acts in speech is also American scholars’ contribution (McCarthy 1991:6).

• Sphere of interest of discourse analysts.

The range of inquiry of discourse analysis not only covers linguistic issues, but is also concerned with other matters, such as: enabling computers to comprehend and produce intelligible texts, thus contributing to progress in the study of Artificial Intelligence. Out of these investigations a very important concept of schemata emerged. It might be defined as prior knowledge of typical situations which enables people to understand the underlying meaning of words in a given text. This mental framework is thought to be shared by a language community and to be activated by key words or context in order for people to understand the message. To implement schemata to a computer, however, is yet impossible (Cook 1990:69).

Discourse analysts carefully scrutinize universal circumstances of the occurrence of communicative products, particularly within state institutions. Numerous attempts to minimize misunderstandings between bureaucrats and citizens were made, resulting in user-friendly design of documents. The world of politics and features of its peculiar communicative products are also of concern to discourse analysts. Having carefully investigated that area of human activity scholars depicted it as characterized by frequent occurrence of face saving acts and euphemisms. One other sphere of life of particular interest to applied linguists is the judicature and its language which is incomprehensible to most common citizens, especially due to pages-long sentences, as well as peculiar terminology. Moreover, educational institutions, classroom language and the language that ought to be taught to enable learners to successfully comprehend both oral and written texts, as well as participate in real life conversations and produce native-like communicative products is the domain of discourse analysis. Last but not least, influence of gender on language production and perception is also examined (Renkema 2004, Trappes-Lomax 2004).

2.2.1 Spoken language analysis

The examination of oral discourse is mainly the domain of linguists gathered at the University of Birmingham, who at first concentrated on the language used during teacher – learner communication, afterwards altering their sphere of interest to more general issues. However, patterns of producing speech characteristic of communities, or members of various social classes within one population were also of ethnomethodologists’ interest. A result of such inquiries was discovering how turn taking differs from culture to culture as well as how standards of politeness vary. In addition, manners of beginning discussions on new topics were described (McCarthy 1991:24).

What is more, it was said that certain characteristics are common to all societies, for instance, indicating the end of thought or end of utterance. The words that are to point the beginning or the closing stages of a phrase are called ‘frames’. McCarthy (1991:13) claims that it is thanks to them that people know when they can take their turn to speak in a conversation. However, in spite of the fact that frames can be noticed in every society, their use might differ, which is why knowledge of patterns of their usage may be essential for conducting a fluent and natural dialogue with a native speaker. Moreover, these differences are not only characteristic of cultures, but also of circumstances in which the conversation occurs, and are also dependent on the rights (or ‘rank’) of the participants (McCarthy 1991:13).

Apart from that, it was pointed out that some utterances are invariably interrelated, which can enable teachers of foreign languages to prepare learners adequately to react as a native speaker would. Among the phrases whose successors are easy to anticipate there are for instance: greeting, where the response is also greeting; apology with the response in the form of acceptance or informing – and acknowledging as a response. Such pairs of statements are known as adjacency pairs. While the function of the reply is frequently determined by the former expression its very form is not, as it depends on circumstances in which the conversation occurs. Thus, in a dialogue between two friends refusal to provide help might look like that: no way! I ain’t gonna do that!, but when mother asks her son to do something the refusing reply is more likely to take different form: I’m afraid I can’t do that right now, can you wait 5 minutes? Frequently used phrases, such as “I’m afraid”, known as softeners, are engaged when people want to sound more respectful. Learners of a foreign language should be aware of such linguistic devices if they want to be skillful speakers (McCarthy 1991:121).

2.2.2 Written texts analysis

Since the examination of written language is easier to conduct than the scrutiny of oral texts, in that more data is available in different genres, produced by people form different backgrounds as well as with disparate purposes, it is more developed and of interest not only to linguists but also language teachers and literary scholars. Each of them, however, approaches this study in a different way, reaching diverse conclusions, therefore only notions that are mutual for them and especially those significant for language methodology are accounted for here. What is worth mentioning is the fact that in that type of analysis scholars do not evaluate the content in terms of literary qualities, or grammatical appropriateness, but how readers can infer the message that the author intended to convey (Trappes-Lomax 2004:133).

Apart from differences between written and spoken language described beforehand it is obviously possible to find various types and classes of discourse depending on their purpose. Written texts differ from one another not only in genre and function, but also in their structure and form, which is of primary importance to language teachers, as the knowledge of arrangement and variety of writing influences readers’ understanding, memory of messages included in the discourse, as well as the speed of perception. Moreover, written texts analysis provides teachers with systematic knowledge of the ways of describing texts, thanks to which they can make their students aware of characteristic features of discourse to which the learners should pay particularly close attention, such as cohesion and coherence. In addition, understanding these concepts should also improve learners’ writing skills as they would become aware of traits essential for a good written text (3).

One of the major concerns of written discourse analysts is the relation of neighboring sentences and, in particular, factors attesting to the fact that a given text is more than only the sum of its components. It is only with written language analysis that certain features of communicative products started to be satisfactorily described, despite the fact that they were present also in speech, like for instance the use of ‘that’ to refer to a previous phrase, or clause (McCarthy 1991:37). As mentioned before (1.2.1) written language is more integrated than the spoken one which is achieved by more frequent use of some cohesive devices which apart from linking clauses or sentences are also used to emphasize notions that are of particular importance to the author and enable the reader to process the chosen information at the same time omitting needless sections (3, Salkie 1995:XI).

2.3 Links within discourse

Links in discourse studies are divided into two groups: formal – which refer to facts that are present in the analyzed text, and contextual – referring to the outside world, the knowledge (or schemata) which is not included in the communicative product itself (Cook 1990:14). Since it is difficult to describe the processing of contextual links without referring to particular psychological inquiries, therefore, this section is devoted to representation of formal links.

By and large five types of cohesive devices are distinguished, some of which might be subdivided:

• Substitution: in order to avoid repeating the same word several times in one paragraph it is replaced, most often by one, do or so. So and do in its all forms might also substitute whole phrases or clauses (e.g. “Tom has created the best web directory. I told you so long time ago”.)
• Ellipsis: it is very similar to substitution, however, it replaces a phrase by a gap. In other words, it is omission of noun, verb, or a clause on the assumption that it is understood from the linguistic context.
• Reference: the use of words which do not have meanings of their own, such as pronouns and articles. To infer their meaning the reader has to refer them to something else that appears in the text (Tom: “How do you like my new Mercedes Vito?” – Marry: “It is a nice van, which I’m also thinking of buying”.).
• Conjunction: specifies the relationship between clauses, or sentences. Most frequent relations of sentences are: addition ( and, moreover e.g. “Moreover, the chocolate fountains are not just regular fountains, they more like rivers full of chocolate and sweets.”), temporality ( afterwards, next e.g. “He bought her perfume at a local perfume shop and afterwards moved toward a jewelry store.”) and causality ( because, since).
• Lexical cohesion: denotes links between words which carry meaning: verbs, nouns, adjectives. Two types of lexical cohesion are differentiated, namely: reiteration and collocation. Reiteration adopts various forms, particularly synonymy, repetition, hyponymy or antonymy (. Collocation is the way in which certain words occur together, which is why it is easy to make out what will follow the first item.

It is clear from the analysis of written language that when people produce discourse they focus not only on the correctness of a single sentence, but also on the general outcome of their production. That is why the approach to teaching a foreign language which concentrates on creating grammatically correct sentences, yet does not pay sufficient attention to regularities on more global level of discourse, might not be the best one (Cook 1990, McCarthy 1991, Salkie 1995).

3. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING

To attain a good command of a foreign language learners should either be exposed to it in genuine circumstances and with natural frequency, or painstakingly study lexis and syntax assuming that students have some contact with natural input. Classroom discourse seems to be the best way of systematizing the linguistic code that learners are to acquire. The greatest opportunity to store, develop and use the knowledge about the target language is arisen by exposure to authentic discourse in the target language provided by the teacher (Dakowska 2001:86).

Language is not only the aim of education as it is in the case of teaching English to Polish students, but also the means of schooling by the use of mother tongue. Having realized that discourse analysts attempted to describe the role and importance of language in both contexts simultaneously paying much attention to possible improvement to be made in these fields.

It has also been settled that what is essential to be successful in language learning is interaction, in both written and spoken form. In addition, students’ failures in communication which result in negotiation of meaning, requests for explanation or reorganization of message contribute to language acquisition. One of the major concerns of discourse analysts has been the manner in which students ought to be involved in the learning process, how to control turn-taking, provide feedback as well as how to teach different skills most effectively on the grounds of discourse analysis’ offerings (Trappes-Lomax 2004:153).

3.1 Application of discourse analysis to teaching grammar

There are a number of questions posed by discourse analysts with reference to grammar and grammar teaching. In particular, they are interested in its significance for producing comprehensible communicative products, realization of grammar items in different languages, their frequency of occurrence in speech and writing which is to enable teaching more natural usage of the target language, as well as learners’ native tongue (McCarthy 1991:47).

While it is possible to use a foreign language being unaware or vaguely aware of its grammatical system, educated speakers cannot allow themselves to make even honest mistakes, and the more sophisticated the linguistic output is to be the more thorough knowledge of grammar gains importance. Moreover, it is essential not only for producing discourse, but also for their perception and comprehension, as many texts take advantage of cohesive devices which contribute to the unity of texts, but might disturb their understanding by a speaker who is not aware of their occurrence.

Anaphoric reference, which is frequent in many oral and written texts, deserves attention due to problems that it may cause to learners at various levels. It is especially important at an early stage of learning a foreign language when learners fail to follow overall meaning turning much attention to decoding information in a given clause or sentence. Discourse analysts have analyzed schematically occurring items of texts and how learners from different backgrounds acquire them and later on produce. Thus, it is said that Japanese students fail to distinguish the difference between he and she, while Spanish pupils have problems with using his and your. Teachers, being aware of possible difficulties in teaching some aspects of grammar, should pay particular attention to them during the introduction of the new material to prevent making mistakes and errors (McCarthy 1991:36).

The most prominent role in producing sophisticated discourse, and therefore one that requires much attention on the part of teachers and learners is that of words and phrases which signal internal relation of sections of discourse, namely conjunctions. McCarthy (1991) claims that there are more than forty conjunctive words and phrases, which might be difficult to teach. Moreover, when it comes to the spoken form of language, where and, but, so, then are most frequent, they may take more than one meaning, which is particularly true for and. Additionally, they not only contribute to the cohesion of the text, but are also used when a participant of a conversation takes his turn to speak to link his utterance to what has been said before (McCarthy 1991:48).

The foregoing notions that words crucial for proper understanding of discourse, apart from their lexical meaning, are also significant for producing natural discourse in many situations support the belief that they should be pondered on by both teachers and students. Furthermore, it is advisable to provide learners with contexts which would exemplify how native users of language take advantage of anaphoric references, ellipses, articles and other grammar related elements of language which, if not crucial, are at least particularly useful for proficient communication (McCarthy 1991:62).

3.2 Application of discourse analysis to teaching vocabulary

What is probably most striking to learners of a foreign language is the quantity of vocabulary used daily and the amount of time that they will have to spend memorizing lexical items. Lexis may frequently cause major problems to students, because unlike grammar it is an open-ended system to which new items are continuously added. That is why it requires close attention and, frequently, explanation on the part of the teacher, as well as patience on the part of the student.

Scholars have conducted in-depth research into techniques employed by foreign language learners concerning vocabulary memorization to make it easier for students to improve their management of lexis. The conclusion was drawn that it is most profitable to teach new terminology paying close attention to context and co-text that new vocabulary appears in which is especially helpful in teaching and learning aspects such as formality and register. Discourse analysts describe co-text as the phrases that surround a given word, whereas, context is understood as the place in which the communicative product was formed (McCarthy 1991:64).

From studies conducted by discourse analysts emerged an important idea of lexical chains present in all consistent texts. Such a chain is thought to be a series of related words which, referring to the same thing, contribute to the unity of a communicative product and make its perception relatively easy. Additionally, they provide a semantic context which is useful for understanding, or inferring the meaning of words, notions and sentences. Links of a chain are not usually limited to one sentence, as they may connect pairs of words that are next to one another, as well as stretch to several sentences or a whole text. The relation of words in a given sequence might be that of reiteration or collocation, however, analyst are reluctant to denote collocation as a fully reliable element of lexical cohesion as it refers only to the likelihood of occurrence of some lexical items. Nevertheless, it is undeniably helpful to know collocations as they might assist in understanding of communicative products and producing native-like discourse (McCarthy 1991:65).

Since lexical chains are present in every type of discourse it is advisable to familiarize learners with the way they function in, not merely because they are there, but to improve students’ perception and production of expressive discourse. Reiteration is simply a repetition of a word later in the text, or the use of synonymy, but what might require paying particularly close attention in classroom situation is hyponymy. While synonymy is relatively easy to master simply by learning new vocabulary dividing new words into groups with similar meaning, or using thesauri, hyponymy and superordination are more abstract and it appears that they require tutelage. Hyponym is a particular case of a more general word, in other words a hyponym belongs to a subcategory of a superordinate with narrower meaning, which is best illustrated by an example: Brazil, with her two-crop economy, was even more severely hit by the Depression thanother Latin American states and the country was on the verge of complete collapse (Salkie 1995:15). In this sentence the word Brazil is a hyponym of the word country – its superordinate. Thus, it should not be difficult to observe the difference between synonymy and hyponymy: while Poland, Germany and France are all hyponyms of the word country, they are not synonymous. Discourse analysts imply that authors of communicative products deliberately vary discursive devices of this type in order to bring the most important ideas to the fore, which in case of English with its wide array of vocabulary is a very frequent phenomenon (McCarthy 1991, Salkie 1995).

One other significant contribution made by discourse analysts for the use of vocabulary is noticing the omnipresence and miscellaneous manners of expressing modality. Contrary to popular belief that it is conveyed mainly by use of modal verbs it has been proved that in natural discourse it is even more frequently communicated by words and phrases which may not be included in the category of modal verbs, yet, carry modal meaning. Lexical items of modality inform the participant of discourse not only about the attitude of the author to the subject matter in question (phrases such as I believe, think, assume), but they also give information about commitment, assertion, tentativeness (McCarthy 1991:85).

Discourse analysts maintain that knowledge of vocabulary-connected discourse devices supports language learning in diverse manners. Firstly, it ought to bring students to organize new items of vocabulary into groups with common context of use to make them realize how the meaning of a certain word might change with circumstances of its use or
co-text. Moreover, it should also improve learners’ abilities to choose the appropriate synonym, collocation or hyponym (McCarthy 1991:71).