Chapter 1: “Defining Discourse Analysis and its Scope for Language
Teaching” (Demir & Akbaş)
Discourse analysis, as Demir and Akbaş present
it, begins from a deceptively simple question: what happens when we look beyond
individual sentences and ask how language is actually used in context? The
chapter opens by distinguishing between sentence-level grammar — the
traditional domain of linguistic analysis — and discourse-level meaning, where
context, speaker intent, and social situation become central. For language
teachers, this shift in focus transforms how they think about communication and
how they teach it. Language, the authors argue, isn’t just a system of forms;
it’s a medium for interaction, shaped by cultural expectations, social
relationships, and pragmatic goals.
The chapter first clarifies the term “discourse.”
Drawing on both linguistics and sociolinguistics, Demir and Akbaş define
discourse as language in use — stretches of spoken or written text that perform
communicative functions within specific contexts. The definition inherently
resists reduction to isolated sentences; it insists that meaning is constructed
through the interplay of linguistic forms and situational factors. For example,
the same grammatical structure (“Can you open the window?”) may function as a
question, a request, or even a polite command, depending on who is speaking, to
whom, and under what circumstances. Discourse, then, is not merely linguistic
material but a reflection of human interaction.
The authors contrast discourse analysis
with traditional linguistic analysis. While linguistics often treats
language as a system of abstract rules, discourse analysis examines how those
rules are mobilized in real situations. It looks for coherence and intention
rather than correctness. This distinction is particularly relevant for language
teaching, where a focus on grammar alone often produces learners who can form
correct sentences but struggle to use them naturally in conversation or
writing. Demir and Akbaş position discourse analysis as a corrective — a bridge
between form and function.
From this conceptual base, the chapter expands
on the scope of discourse analysis in language education. The authors
identify several layers at which discourse operates: textual (organization of
ideas), interactional (how participants manage turns, politeness, and repair),
and social (how identity and power relations shape communication). Each layer
offers insights teachers can use to help learners understand authentic language
use. For instance, teaching students about how spoken exchanges are structured
— greetings, small talk, topic shifts — equips them to engage more effectively
in real-world interactions.
Central to Demir and Akbaş’s argument is the role
of context. Context isn’t treated as a background variable but as an active
element in meaning-making. They distinguish between linguistic context (the
surrounding text), situational context (the immediate physical and social
environment), and cultural context (shared beliefs and norms that influence
interpretation). Each of these levels affects how discourse is understood. For
example, irony or humor often depends on cultural context, while reference
(“this,” “that,” “here,” “there”) depends on situational context. Without
attending to these layers, learners may misinterpret intended meanings even if
they understand the words.
The authors also discuss the relationship
between discourse and communicative competence. In communicative approaches
to language teaching, the goal is not merely grammatical accuracy but
appropriate use. Discourse analysis offers the descriptive and analytical tools
to achieve this. By examining real conversations, classroom interactions, or
written genres, teachers can help students see how meaning is negotiated, how
coherence is achieved, and how social roles are performed through language. For
example, understanding how academic articles establish authority or how service
encounters manage politeness directly informs pedagogical choices.
Demir and Akbaş then turn to types of
discourse relevant to teaching. They differentiate between spoken and
written discourse, monologic and dialogic forms, institutional and casual talk.
Each type reveals different conventions and constraints. For instance, spoken
discourse tends to feature hesitation, overlap, and repair, whereas written
discourse emphasizes cohesion and organization. Classroom activities should
expose learners to both, since language proficiency depends on navigating
across modes and contexts.
A key contribution of this chapter is its
insistence on authenticity. Real language use, the authors argue, is
often messy, nonlinear, and context-bound — unlike the clean examples found in
many textbooks. Discourse analysis encourages teachers to bring authentic
materials into the classroom: transcripts of conversations, online discussions,
advertisements, academic essays, and more. By analyzing how language actually
functions in such texts, learners can develop a deeper, more flexible
understanding of meaning. The focus shifts from memorizing rules to recognizing
patterns of use.
