DOI: 10.2478/jtes-2019-0010
Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability,
vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 128ñ136, 2019
Discourse Analysis and Language Pedagogy:
A Review
Alireza Bonyadi
Islamic Azad University, Urmia, Iran
Abstract
Taking discourse approach towards language teaching has been drawing researchersí
and practitionersí attention since the introduction of discourse analysis as a discipline
in social sciences. Based on the premise that education for sustainable development (ESD)
in language pedagogy cannot be realized fully unless language teachers are equipped
with theoretical issues in discourse analysis, the purpose of this paper is to review the
current research on discourse analysis and language teaching. The focus on the intersection of discourse analysis and language education indicates that three approaches,
namely Critical discourse analysis, Descriptive discourse analysis, and Pedagogical
discourse analysis have been taken by practitioners in educational context. As for directions of future research on discourse analysis and language teaching, it was postulated
that the prospective researchers in the field are expected to focus on operationalizing
the discourse concepts at the methodological level. This would be possible if EFL/ESL
teachers themselves truly get educated in a discourse-based program in teacher education
centers.
Keywords: discourse analysis, language teaching, pedagogical discourse, critical discourse
analysis, genre analysis.
Introduction
Language teaching in general and EFL teaching practice in particular have gone
through different phases based on the then emerging related pedagogical teaching theories.
However, the common resulting theme of employing these theories is almost the same.
Students are still having difficulties with their learned ìEnglishesî in spite of their ability
in perceiving and production of linguistically acceptable words, phrases, and sentences
(Lezberg & Hilferty, 1978; Olshtain & Celce-Murcia, 2001).
Moreover, the prevalent communicative approach to language teaching with its
emphasis on mastering communicative strategies such as inferencing, paraphrasing,
using circumlocution, avoidance, ñ just to name a few ñ has not resulted in any radical
change in the status quo as was expected by the advocates (Cots, 1996; Jin & Li, 2005;
Rao, 2002). In other words, the approach is still lagging behind in developing studentsí
real communicative competence. Of course, this inefficiency can be attributed to factors
Discourse Analysis and Language Pedagogy: A Review
129
like the limited number of class hours, lack of opportunities to interact with natives,
and little exposure to out-of-class genres and discourse types (Demo, 2001).
As a solution to the inefficiency of communicative approaches to language teaching,
it was suggested that these approaches cannot be succeeded unless they are coupled
with ìlanguage teachers and other teaching professionals (curriculum developers, textbook
writers, language testers) with proper grounding in discourse analysisî (Olshtain &
Celce-Murcia, 2001, p. 721).
In fact, experimental and enquiry learning which are usually emphasized in language
teaching can be realized through taking a discourse approach in EFL teaching. These
strategies are the main objectives of education for sustainable development. (Teaching
and Learning for a Sustainable Future, 2018)
Growing out of disciplines like linguistics, semiotics, psychology, anthropology
and sociology, discourse analysis generally aims at studying language (both written and
spoken) in context (McCarthy, 1991). Having said so, it seems that people in these
different disciplines use the term discourse analysis to serve their intended purposes. In
other words, they are posing different questions and then suggesting different answers
(Johnstone, 2018).
Within the context of EFL teaching, discourse analysis can be defined as ìhow
stretches of language, considered in their full textual, social, and psychological context,
become meaningful and unified for their usersî (Cook, 1990, p. 3). Based on this definition, some EFL practitioners, in line with Olshtain and Celce-Murciaís suggestion on
grounding in discourse analysis, ventured out into incorporating discourse analysis in
their practical teaching professions.
The phrase ìventured out ìhas purposefully used in the preceding paragraph as it
is not that much feasible to adopt a discourse point of view in teaching a language unless
one attempts initially to reconsider and modify some of his/her perceptions about language
based on the following premises:
— The main focus of language teaching is communication,
— Context is of importance in shaping communication, and
— Meanings are exchanged dynamically in a speech event.
Considering the fact that communicative language teaching cannot be realized fully
unless language teachers are equipped with theoretical issues in discourse analysis
(Olshtain & Celce-Murcia, 2001), and reconsider their perceptions on language, the
next logical issue that should be addressed would be how we can put this theoretical
knowledge into practice in the classrooms.
Moreover, it is predicted that the pedagogical consequence of taking such an
approach in language teaching would result in a teaching methodology which is highly
contextualized, full of authentic instances of language uses in different social situations
(Cots, 1996).
The present paper, thus, attempts to review the published papers and reports on
employing discourse analysis in English language teaching. As it is not practically possible
to present all the published papers in the literature, only selected papers based on their
typicality would be reported herewith. This review paper initially examines the papers
to find out how discourse analysis has been integrated into language teaching practice.
A conclusion has been drawn at the end of the review.
130
Alireza Bonyadi
Discourse Analysis in Educational Context
Based on the key concepts in discourse analysis focusing on how people use language
in real life for communicating what they mean and also for doing what they want, some
language practitioners in an effort to raise a conscious ìawareness of numerous discourse
conventionsî (Belz, 2005, p. 342) have tried to ìflavorî their teaching with different
discourse approaches. Critical discourse analysis, Descriptive discourse analysis and
Pedagogical discourse analysis are the approaches taken by some practitioners in educational context.
Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical discourse analysis defined as ìan analytical research that primarily studies
the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and
resisted by text and talk in the social and political contextî (Van Dijk, 2003, p. 352)
has been employed in educational settings. In this setting, it aims at developing studentsí
capacities in evaluating and scrutinizing the world as represented in texts and talks. In
this way, the teachers go beyond linguistic training helping the students become critical
thinkers something that has been ignored in our EFL teaching courses (Colt, 2006).
In an effort to demonstrate the application of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in
language teaching, Cots (2006) proposed some activities to be followed in teaching
reading skills. Specifically and in line with Faircloughís (1992) analytical model, Cots
presented three sets of questions pertained to three different levels of text analysis namely
social, discursive and textual practices. He claimed that through using these questions,
the teachers would be able to approach language use with a critical attitude.
Rahimi and Sharififar (2015) investigated the effect of using critical discourse analysis
on studentsí reading skills. One of Obamaís political speeches was presented to the
students as a reading text. The students were asked to analyze the text once before
attending critical discourse analysis (CDA) lectures and then after the lectures. Based
on the comparison of the studentsí performance in analyzing the text and also their
perceptions of the effect of CDA on their performance elicited through a questionnaire,
the researchers concluded that CDA facilitated studentsí critical thinking ability. As an
implication of the study, they suggested that instead of presenting factual texts, both
teachers and syllabus designers should prefer ideologically loaded reading texts. Accordingly, they argued that teachers should focus on inferential questions in their reading
classes.
Lezberg and Hilferty (1978) in an attempt to prepare students for successful communication in general and helping them in their EFL reading classes to ìunderstand more
fully the implications of their readingî (p. 49) in particular suggested focusing on plays
as reading texts assuming that the genre includes ìthose covert elements of social interaction which control and transcend the meaning of each discrete word, sentence, or
speechî (p. 50). Also, as an exercise for reading texts selected from current newspaper
and magazines, they presented some tasks such as, skimming tasks, scanning tasks and
activities, such as before-reading, after-reading exercises and some reading skill builders,
such as timed reading exercises. Through doing these exercises, they anticipated that
the students would stop fearing reading materials. Engaging as active participants, the
students would ask questions and challenge ideas.
Discourse Analysis and Language Pedagogy: A Review
131
Pedagogical Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis as a heterogeneous field has also formed a backdrop to research
in teaching language skills (McCarthy, 1991). Among the language skills, language
practitioners have generally focused on reading and writing skills.
In an attempt to take a discourse approach in his reading class, Wu (2017) focused
on aspects of discourse grammar, namely identifying and understanding reference and
substitution, ellipsis, lexical cohesion, conjunctions and identifying the rhetorical structures. He claimed that using a discourse approach proved to be beneficial to his students
as it enabled them to foster their logical thinking ability. The claim, of course, has not
been substantiated by any statistics.
Khatib & Safari (2011) explored the relationship between EFL studentsí knowledge
of discourse markers and their reading comprehension. The findings of the study indicated
a high correlation (.71) between the two variables. As an implications of the study, the
researchers proposed discourse markers to be taught explicitly as it enhanced studentsí
reading comprehension.
Based on his secondary research on the application of discourse analysis in EFL
reading skill, Ivanov (2009) claimed that discourse analysis made a ìparadigm shiftî in
teaching reading skills in that it first changed the focus from
— Linguistic study of text to study of language in use,
— Bottom-up/top-down approach to interactive approach, and
— Prior knowledge-oriented approach to awareness-oriented approach.
As implications of his study, Ivanov suggested that EFL teachers as well as syllabus
designers should ìdelineate genres that are essential and relevant to particular learnersí
needs and to include them in class content and textbooksî (p. 25). Secondly, he claimed
that a discourse oriented approach to language teaching would bring about a kind of
ìlanguage awarenessî on certain discourse structures and functions enabling the students
to establish relationships between forms and functions. Finally, the approach would
enable the teachers to evaluate their classroom interactions that would be of importance
in designing classroom tasks.
Focusing on discourse in second language writing classrooms, Paltridge (2018)
raised the notion of ìgenreî that he thought to be useful for teachers in teaching writing.
Practically, he proposed a number of ways for focusing on discourse in general and
genre in particular in ESL settings listed as below:
— Teachers can take a sample text and analyze it in the classroom to identify its
rhetorical structures and moves. The outcome can be used as a model for
students to draw on for their individual writings.
— Students are given a sample text/texts to be analyzed in terms of discourse
structure in preparation for their own writings.
— Teachers can cut up texts into their discourse structures and then jumble them
to get reassembled by the students. The original text, then, can be presented
to the students for comparison purposes.
— Based on some key aspects of certain genres, students can be asked to write
texts. They are then asked to critique each otherís texts discussing their observations.
— Students can compose a text based on notes. Drawing on what they have
already been taught, students are asked to write up the information on the
cards in an accepted manner. (A kind of consolidation practice)
132
Alireza Bonyadi
— Students can be guided to focus on the thematic progression of a given text to
figure out the flow of information in certain genre.
Through carrying out these classroom tasks, the students are expected to become
familiar with ìthe ways of using language that are typical of different discourse communitiesî (Ibid, p. 662).
Kapanadze (2018) conducted a research on the effect of discourse oriented teaching
on improving studentsí cognitive and effective skills. The findings of her study indicated
that this way of teaching improved studentsí reading comprehension skills, their textual
analysis and language use abilities.
Furthermore, the main themes emerged in her analysis of studentsí interviews on
their perception on taking discourse-oriented classes were reported as enhancing studentsí
thinking skills, meaningful learning, effective organization of ideas, native language
awareness, and social skills.
Though the researcher had not elaborated fully on her claimed discourse-oriented
method of teaching, she stated that ìintegration of discourse analysis method to language
and literature lessons makes these lessons more interesting and attractive, and so it
creates more opportunities for students to attend and actively participate in these lessonsî
(p. 104).
Discourse Analysis as a Tool for Language Description
The description of language above the sentence and the interest in the contexts and
cultural influences which might affect language in use can be regarded as the common
themes of different discourse approaches (McCarthy, 1991). In line with this general
themes, some language practitioners undertook efforts to use discourse analysis as a
tool for describing interaction patterns, discourse markers, teacher talk, and gender
representations in EFL context. It is believed that through this approach of discourse,
EFL/ESL teachers would be able to acquire a deeper understanding of the nature of
classroom discourse providing them with a concrete framework for tuning their classroom
activities (Belz, 2005).
Acknowledging the limitations of communicative approaches in developing communicative competence of ESL students, Demo (2001) proposed a four-part process of
Record-View-Transcribe-Analyze to study teachersí classroom interaction patterns.
Furthermore, to expose learners to different discourse patterns, he encouraged teachers
to make the students do discourse analysis of natural language use in different contexts
enabling them to get a deeper ìunderstanding of the discourse patterns associated with
a given genre or speech event as well as the sociolinguistic factors that contribute to
linguistic variation across settings and contextsî (p. 4).
Employing a qualitative approach, Sulaimani (2017) investigated gender representation in listening comprehension texts included in English textbooks used in Saudi
university. The study revealed that textbook material underrepresented females. He
supported the claim through indicating the fact that men were represented more frequently
than women. Moreover, the number of men occurring in subject position outnumbered
the women. The study came to conclusion that the ìbiased representation of gender in
textbooks would hinder the process of women empowermentî (p. 50).
Modhish (2012) investigated the use of discourse markers (DM) that Yemeni EFL
learners used in their composition writings. The study also explored the possible relation-
Discourse Analysis and Language Pedagogy: A Review
133
ship between the use of such markers and the writing quality of the learners. Based on
Fraserís taxonomy, the researcher reported that the most frequently used discourse
markers were: the elaborative, inferential, contrastive, causative and topic relating
markers. The statistical analysis of the data, however, indicated no positive correlation
between studentsí total number of discourse markers used and their writing quality. It
was recommended that EFL teachers should focus on DMs both inductively and deductively in their classes.
In line with the above-mentioned study, ÷zer and Okan (2018), through a corpus
based study, explored the frequency and the types of discourse markers (DM) used by
Turkish teachers and native teachers in EFL classrooms. The results of the study indicated
that Turkish teachers used DMs with a less variety compared to native teachers in EFL
classrooms. Turkish teachers in this study were found to use 29 different DMs like
(ìokayî, ìandî, ìyesî, etc.). Native teachers, on the other hand, used additionally 37
different DMs like (ìyou know whatî, ìto begin withî, ìyou seeî, etc.). The researchers,
thus, highlighted the ìnecessity of raising nonnative English language teachersí awareness
towards the significance of DMs in the spoken discourseî (p. 62).
Using conversational analysis as a framework, Gharbavia and Iravani (2014) investigated the quality and efficiency of teacher talk addressing the research question if the
talk facilitates or otherwise EFL studentsí language use. The study reported that teacher
talk in most cases was ìrepetitive and monotonousî making the students anxious and
stressful and thus blocking their learning processes.
Conclusion
Since ìinternational awareness about sustainability was first introduced at the United
Nations UNESCO-UNEP International Educational Programî (Iliko, OÔehnoviËa,
Ostrovska, Akmene, & SalÓte, 2017, p. 103), language practitioners have tried to incorporate concepts and ideas proposed by different approaches of discourse analysts into
their practical language classrooms trying to get closer to education for sustainable
development in language pedagogy. The present review paper indicated that among
different discourse approaches, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Descriptive Discourse
Analysis (DDA), and Pedagogical Discourse Analysis (PDA) were the approaches taken
by some practitioners in educational context. Helping students become critical thinkers
besides mastering the basic linguistic structures of the target language was the aim
pursued by critical discourse analysis in educational context. Through Descriptive
Discourse Analysis, practitioners aimed at describing language above the sentence taking
into consideration respective educational context. Pedagogical Discourse Analysis
examined the effect of different discourse variables on teaching language skills.
The two initial approaches namely CDA and DDA are of importance in language
education in that they acquaint the learners with the natural language use in authentic
environments assisting them to deepen their appreciation of the discourse patterns
associated with a certain genre that is not possible otherwise (Demo, 2011). In other
words, the approaches provide the ìstudents with the language resources and skills
which will help them gain access to academic discourse communitiesî (Paltridge, 2018,
p. 2).
The third approach, PDA, aimed at making use of the findings put forward by
CDA and DDA in educational contexts which in fact opens a new dimension in language
134
Alireza Bonyadi
teaching practice. However, the review indicated that the approach has focused more
on reading and writing skills than speaking and listening. Acknowledging the importance
of speaking and listening skills in developing communicative competence of the students,
scholars who are taking PDA approach should shift their attention to these skills as
well.
The other issue the researcher in this field, PDA, are expected to do is exploring the
practical ways for incorporating further concepts of discourse analysis in EFL classrooms.
The point is that how it would be possible to teach explicitly or otherwise, say, text
interpretations strategies such as schematic knowledge, frames of reference, background
knowledge, or conversation strategies like turn-taking, repairs, giving feedbacks or any
other aspects of discourse that do play a role in enabling the learners to make sense of
a piece of discourse or get engaged in an interaction in a certain context?
It seems that there is a common consensus among EFL teachers that sustained
educational development as ìa multi-disciplinary subjectî (Anyolo & Keinonen, 2018,
p. 64) would not be realized unless a discourse approach in language teaching has been
taken. However, the issue of realization of the approach in educational settings has not
been explored fully. In fact, to transit from an approach level to a methodology level,
we should come up with a design for an instructional system which includes objectives,
content, learning tasks, teacher/learner role and instructional materials (Richard &
Rogers, 2014). In other words, the prospective researchers on the field should focus on
operationalizing the discourse concepts in methodological level.
Finally, even if we do manage in transition from approach level to methodology
level, there would be no guarantee, however, for taking a full-fledged pedagogical discourse
approach unless our EFL/ESL teachers themselves truly get educated in a discoursebased program. Through teacher training centers ìteacher candidates reach a synthesis
about what to become and what not to become when they graduate and become an inservice teacherî (Atmaca, 2017, p. 79). Thus, language teacher training centers are
expected to take required measured in this regard tuning themselves with the recent
approaches in EFL/ESL instruction. In fact, it would be both unethical and illogical to
expect teachers to teach in a certain way for which they have not well prepared.
To reorient teacher education to address sustainability, the major tenets of sustainable development should be applied to education and teacher education (Ghaemi &
Kargozari, 2011). In this way, as it has been highlighted by Sunda (2016), it is hoped
that through considering language learning and teaching as a part of education for
sustainable development we would be able to change our students to critical and independent thinkers questioning current behavior and patterns of life style.
References
Anyolo, E. O., K‰rkk‰inen, S., & Keinonen, T. (2018). Implementing education for
sustainable development in Namibia: School teachersí perceptions and teaching
practices. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 20(1), 64ñ81.
Atmaca, Ç. (2017). Effects of contextual factors on ESD in teacher education. Discourse
and Communication for Sustainable Education, 8(2), 77ñ93.
Belz, J. A. (2005). Discourse analysis and foreign language teacher education. In Applied
linguistics and language teacher education (pp. 341ñ363). Boston, MA: Springer.
Discourse Analysis and Language Pedagogy: A Review
135
Cook, G. (1990). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cots, J. M. (1996). Bringing discourse analysis into the language classroom. Links &
Letters, 3, 77ñ101.
Cots, J. M. (2006). Teaching ëwith an attitudeí: Critical discourse analysis in EFL
teaching. ELT Journal, 60(4), 336ñ345.
Demo, D. A. (2001). Discourse analysis for language teachers (Report No. ED456672).
ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics Washington DC. ERIC Digest.
Retrieved from ERIC database.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ghaemi, H., & Kargozari, H. (2011). An investigation into the elements of the international English language testing system: Instructorsí success. Journal of Teacher
Education for Sustainability, 13(1), 84ñ98.
Gharbavi, A., & Iravani, H. (2014). Is teacher talk pernicious to students? A discourse
analysis of teacher talk. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 552ñ561.
Iliko, D., OÔehnoviËa, E., Ostrovska, I., Akmene, V., & SalÓte, I. (2017). Meeting the
challenges of ESD competency-based curriculum in a vocational school setting.
Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 8(2), 103ñ113.
Ji, Y. (2015). Discourse analysis and development of English listening for non-English
majors in China. English Language Teaching, 8(2), 134.
Jin, L., Singh, M., & Li, L. (2005, November). Communicative language teaching in
China: Misconceptions, applications and perceptions. A paper presented at AAREí
05 Education Research. Parramatta, Sydney.
Johnstone, B. (2018). Discourse analysis (3rd Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Ivanov, S. (2009). Discourse analysis in EFL reading. Unpublished MA thesis, Malmˆ
University, Sweden.
Kapanadze, D. ‹. (2018). The effect of using discourse analysis method on improving
cognitive and affective skills in language and literature teaching. European Journal
of Education Studies, 4(5), 92ñ107.
Khatib, M., & Safari, M. (2011). Comprehension of discourse markers and reading
Comprehension. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 243ñ250.
Lezberg, A., & Hilferty, A. (1978). Discourse analysis in the reading class. TESOL
quarterly, 47ñ55.
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language
teaching. London: Longman.
Modhish, A. S. (2012). Use of discourse markers in the composition writings of Arab
EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 5(5), 56ñ74.
Olshtain, E., & Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Discourse Analysis and Language Teaching.
In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse
analysis (pp. 707ñ 724). Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
÷zer, H. Z., & Okan, Z. (2018). Discourse markers in EFL classrooms: A corpusdriven research. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(1), 50ñ66.
Paltridge, B. (2018). Discourse analysis for the second language writing classroom. In
J. I. Liontas (Ed.), TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. WileyBladewell.
136
Alireza Bonyadi
Rahimi, E., & Sharififar, M. (2015). Critical discourse analysis and its implication in
English language teaching: A case study of political text. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 5(3), 504ñ511.
Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese studentsí perceptions of communicative and non-communicative
activities in EFL classroom. System, 30, 85ñ105.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sulaimani, A. (2017). Gender representation in EFL textbooks in Saudi Arabia: A fair
deal? English Language Teaching, 10(6), 44ñ52.
Sundh, S. (2016). A corpus of young learnersí English in the Baltic Region texts for
studies on sustainable development. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable
Education, 7(2), 92ñ104.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, &
D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352ñ371). Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Wu, Y. (2017). Application and teaching implication of discourse analysis in reading
comprehension. Advances in Intelligent Systems Research, 156, 513ñ517.
Teaching and learning for a sustainable future. (2018). Available from http://www.
unesco.org/education/tlsf/
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Alireza Bonyadi,
Assistant professor of Teaching English as a Second Language, English Language
Department, Urmia Branch, Islamic Azad University, 57169-63896, Urmia, Iran. Email:
a.bonyadi@iaurmia.ac.ir