What is Discourse Analysis?

The method of discourse analysis is complex and cannot be properly understood without
further reading. The aim of this section is to provide you with an outline of the
approach so that if you haven't read much about it can decide whether to learn
more about the method and whether to base your investigation on this
approach. However, an example is provided towards the end of the chapter to
illustrate its use and we provide a list of transcription rules.

Discourse Analysis
The focus of discourse analysis is any form of written or spoken language, such as a conversation or a
newspaper article. The main topic of interest is the underlying social structures, which may be assumed or
played out within the conversation or text. It concerns the sorts of tools and strategies people use when
engaged in communication, such as slowing one's speech for emphasis, use of metaphors, choice of particular
words to display affect, and so on.
The investigator attempts to identify categories, themes, ideas, views, roles, and so on, within the text itself.
The aim is to identify commonly shared discursive resources (shared apetterns of talking). The investigator
tries to answer questins such as how the discourse helps us understand the issue under study, how people
construct their own version of an event, and how people use discourse to maintain or construct their own
identity.
In terms of conversational data, the researcher uses the transcript of the conversation (a systematic way of
coding the words) as their source. An example might be mother-child conversations focussing on situations that
provoke anxiety, or another might be a conversation among a group of factory workers about the royal family.

Discourse analysis is a qualitative method that has been adopted and developed by social
constructionists. Although discourse analysis can and is used by a handful of cognitive psychologists,
it is based on a view that is largely anti-scientific, though not anti-research. Social constructionism is
not easy to define in a single sentence, but it is possible to outline some basic assumptions of the
approach:
Psychologists cannot be objective when studying human behaviour. In the scientific
approach there is the belief that knowledge can be gained by objectivity (observations made
as though the investigator is an alien from another planet and has no preconceived notion of
what is being observed). However, this has been disputed people, including researchers,
cannot be objective. A researcher is very likely to hold some position (expectation, belief, or
set of cultural values) when they are conducting their research. The result is that people can
construct their own versions of reality.
Reality is socially constructed. In the scientific approach it is assumed that it is possible to
categorise reality, and that constructs psychologists use, such as personality and intelligence,
are naturally occurring categories. However, this ignores the fact that language shapes the
categories and constructs we use. Since language is a social and cultural thing, our sense of
reality is socially and culturally constructed.
People are the products of social interaction. In the scientific approach it is assumed that
many of the constructs used are inner essences'. That is to say that personality, anxiety,
drives, and so on exist somewhere within our heads and our bodies. However, it may be the
case that many of these so-called essences are actually the products of social interaction.
In order to understand these assumptions, let's look at the example provided by Burr (1995)
on the issue of personality.
The traditional view of personality

1. 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 (TrappesLomax 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).
3.3 Application of discourse analysis to teaching text interpretation
Interpretation of a written text in discourse studies might be defined as the act of grasping the
meaning that the communicative product is to convey. It is important to emphasize that clear
understanding of writing is reliant on not only what the author put in it, but also on what a reader
brings to this process. McCarthy (1991) points out that reading is an exacting action which involves
recipient's knowledge of the world, experience, ability to infer possible aims of discourse and
evaluate the reception of the text.
Painstaking research into schemata theory made it apparent that mere knowledge of the world is not
always sufficient for successful discourse processing. Consequently, scholars dealing with text
analysis redefined the concept of schemata dividing it into two: content and formal schemata.
Content, as it refers to shared knowledge of the subject matter, and formal, because it denotes the
knowledge of the structure and organization of a text. In order to aid students to develop necessary
reading and comprehension skills attention has to be paid to aspects concerning the whole system of a
text, as well as crucial grammar structures and lexical items. What is more, processing written
discourse ought to occur on global and local scale at simultaneously, however, it has been
demonstrated that readers employ different strategies of reading depending on what they focus on
(McCarthy 1991:168).
3.3.1 Top-down and bottom-up text processing
Distinguishing noticeably different approaches to text processing led to distinction of manners of
attending to written communicative products. Bottom-up processes are those which are involved in
assimilating input from the smallest chunks of discourse: sounds in speech and letters in texts,
afterwards moving to more and more general features. This technique is frequently applied by lowerlevel learners who turn much attention to decoding particular words, thus losing the more general
idea, that is the meaning of a given piece of writing. In the same way learning a new language begins:
first the alphabet, then words and short phrases, next simple sentences, finally elaborate compound
sentences. While it is considered to be a good way of making learners understand the language, a
wider perspective is necessary to enable students to successfully produce comprehensible discourse
(Cook 1990, McCarthy 1991).
Alternatively, top-down processing starts with general features of a text, gradually moving to the
narrower. This approach considers all levels of communicative products as a total unit whose
elements work collectively, in other words, it is more holistic. Not only does the information in a text
enable readers to understand it, but it also has to be confronted with recipient's former knowledge and
expectations which facilitate comprehension. It is important to make students aware of these two
ways of dealing with written discourse and how they may be exploited depending on the task. When
learners are to get acquainted with the main idea of a particular communicative product they should
take advantage of top-down approach, while when answering detailed true-false questions they would
benefit from bottom-up reading (Cook 1990, McCarthy 1991).
3.3.2 Types of text
Obviously, all texts have a certain feature in common, namely they are indented to convey some
meaning. This function, however, might be fulfilled in a number of different ways: a road sign 'stop',

and a six hundred pages long novel are both texts which might serve that purpose, yet, there are
certain characteristics that distinguish them. The above example presents the idea somewhat in the
extreme, although, enumerating several other common types of texts might affirm that the notion of
text is a very broad one and is not limited to such varieties as those that can be found in language
course books (Cook 1990, Crystal 1995).
Differences between texts might be striking, while menu is usually easy to read, legal documents or
wills are not. All of them, however, have certain features that others lack, which if explained by a
qualified teacher might serve as a signpost to interpretation.Additionally, the kind of a given text
might also provide information about its author, as for example in the case of recipes, warrants or
manuals, and indirectly about possible vocabulary items and grammar structures that can appear in it,
which should facilitate perception of the text. Having realized what kind of passage learners are to
read, on the basis of its title they should be able to predict the text's content, or even make a list of
vocabulary that might appear in the communicative product. With teacher's tutelage such abilities are
quickly acquired which improves learners' skills of interpretation and test results (Cook 1990,
McCarthy 1991, Crystal 1995)
3.3.3 Patterns in text
Having accounted for various kinds of associations between words, as well as clauses and sentences
in discourse, the time has come to examine patterns that are visible throughout written
communicative products. Patterning in texts contributes to their coherence, as it is thanks to patterns
that writing is structured in a way that enables readers to easily confront the received message with
prior knowledge. Salkie (1995) indicates that the majority of readers unconsciously makes use of
tendencies of arranging texts to approach information.
Among most frequently occurring patterns in written discourses there are inter alia claimcounterclaim, problem-solution, question-answer or general-specific statement arrangements.
Detailed examination of such patterning revealed that problem-solution sequence is frequently
accompanied by two additional parts, namely background (in other words introduction) and
evaluation (conclusion). While in some elaborate texts the background and the problem might be
presented in the same sentence, in other instances - when reader is expected to be familiar with the
background, it might not be stated in the text itself. Although both cohesive devices and problemsolution patterns often occur in written communicative products only the former are designated as
linguistic means, since patterning, when encountered, has to be faced with assumptions, knowledge
and opinion of the reader (McCarthy 1991, Salkie 1995).
One other frequently occurring arrangement of texts is based on general-specific pattern which is
thought to have two variations. In the first one a general statement is followed by a series of more
specific sentences referring to the same broad idea, ultimately summarized by one more general
remark. Alternatively, a general statement at the beginning of a paragraph might be followed by a
specific statement after which several more sentences ensue, each of which is more precise than its
predecessor, finally going back to the general idea (McCarthy 1991:158).
As McCarthy (1991) points out, the structure of patterns is fixed, yet the number of sentences or
paragraphs in a particular part of a given arrangement might vary. Furthermore, one written text might
contain several commonplace patterns occurring consecutively, or one included in another. Therefore,
problem-solution pattern present in a text might be filled with general-specific model within one
paragraph and claim-counterclaim in another. As discourse analysts suggest making readers aware of
patterning might sanitize them to clues which enable proper understanding of written communicative
products (McCarthy 1991:161).

Yet large corpus data show that actual synonymy is quite rare in the
sense that virtually no two lexical items collocate in precisely the same
way. Complementarily, the large corpuses show that synonymy might be
strategically replaced by a concept such as mutual collocability': the
potential of formulating collocations (in the definition) which suggest
sequences that can collocate in corresponding contexts, e.g.:

[4a] they are laughing all the way to the bank

[4b] they are making a lot of money very easily and feel very confident