What is meant by ‘discourse’?

Hicks points to the importance of the notion of discourse in recent sociocultural

research. Discourse is a key notion in much contemporary work in the social sciences

and its meaning varies according to the particular theorists that researchers draw on.

For example, in applied linguistics research, discourse is often used to refer to a stretch

of language – spoken or written – in context (Crystal, 1997). In contrast, for many social

theorists, notably post-structuralist social philosophers such as Foucault (e.g., 1980),

discourse refers to socially and historically situated domains of knowledge or ways of

construing the world. In the first reading, Hicks emphasises the work of researchers on

language who aim to combine the more concrete use of discourse as actual stretches of

language with some elements of the more abstract notion of discourse from social

theory. Throughout this unit we draw on these two notions of discourse to talk about

language in context:

1. Discourse as ‘language in its social context, as it is used to carry out the social

and intellectual life of a community’ (Mercer, 1995, p. 79). This meaning of

discourse emphasises the importance of looking at language in context and

usually involves an analysis of actual stretches of spoken and written language,

often referred to as ‘texts’. Note that ‘text’ is a term widely used in language

research to refer to both spoken and written language, and, more recently, visual

images, as we will see in section 4.

2. Discourse as ‘different ways of structuring areas of knowledge and social practice’

(Fairclough, 1992, p. 3). This is a more abstract meaning of the term than (1) as it

is not used to refer to particular texts, but rather to explain how certain ideas and

values are embodied in the communications of a community or society. Discourse

in this sense cannot be observed or recorded but is rather a theory of social

reality. This meaning is found in some research on education (e.g., Ball 1990;

Usher and Edwards, 1998) and on language in society (Pennycook, 1998). It is

commonly used in analyses of political influence and social power. For example, in

his examination of global English, Pennycook refers to the ‘discourse of

colonialism’ (1998). Naz Rassool (2000), whose article you will be reading in

section 3, refers to what she terms the post-structuralist discourses of language,

identity and cultural power.

While we can distinguish these two different kinds of meaning of the term ‘discourse’, it

is important to bear in mind that it is often used in confusing or ambiguous ways.

Researchers and writers may use the term to mean either or both of the meanings

outlined above and they may not make it absolutely clear how they are using the term.

In this section, we will use the term mainly in the first of the meanings described above

as we focus primarily on actual instances of language in context: talk in the classroom.

But the second meaning is also briefly referred to; for example by linking actual

instances of talk in classrooms with schooling as a particular kind of institution with its

own particular language values and beliefs. Other aspects of the notion of discourse

arise in later parts of the unit and will be discussed as they do so.

The importance of the notion of discourse in what are known as social constructionist

perspectives on language, including a sociocultural perspective, is that language not

only reflects but constructs social reality. As Hicks points out in her reading, classroom

life is constituted through the specific discourse practices in which students and

teachers engage.

Discourse strategies used by teachers

Various discourse strategies or techniques have been identified which – like the IRF

exchange – are commonly used by teachers in many parts of the world. Some experts

suggest that the ubiquity of these ways of using language reflects the fact that all

teachers have some similar responsibilities for guiding the learning and understanding

of their students. Thus they use recaps and exhortations to create links between past,

present and future educational experience.

As analysts, we may infer that the intention of teachers in using various discourse

techniques or strategies is to build a shared context for supporting classroom dialogue

and the process of teaching and learning. This is a worthy and sensible intention.

However, achieving such shared understanding is a problematic procedure as even

teachers’ best laid plans go awry; and misunderstandings are a common product of

teacher–student interaction.

There are powerful and salutary illustrations of how difficult the communicative process

of teaching and learning can be. They also illustrate well the weakness of the claim by

Pinker (1994) that ‘Simply by making noises with our mouths, we can reliably cause

precise new combinations of ideas to arise in each other’s minds’. Torrance and Pryor

(1998) highlight some ways in which the nature of a teacher’s questioning can have a

strong influence on the process of classroom education. One implication of their

analysis might be that if teachers changed their conception of the functions of dialogue

with their students, and/or had a more insightful understanding of the pragmatics of

classroom dialogue, this might change the ways they chose to manage classroom

communication. The kind of reconceptualisation of the process of teaching and learning

that would be most welcome would, of course, be one that led to a better quality of

teaching and learning.

There are a range of concepts which are now quite commonly employed in sociocultural

research (and so part of what Hicks calls the discourse of the relevant research

community). One of these concepts – and an important one – is ‘scaffolding’.

The concept of scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) offers

educational researchers an attractive metaphorical image of a skilled teacher’s

intervention in a student’s learning. But to use it in a systematic, rigorous way we need

to decide what, in classroom interactions, counts as ‘scaffolding’ and what is merely

‘help’. (Using the term to describe any intervention on the part of a teacher would

reduce it to no more than empty jargon). One way we can explore the use of the

concept is to apply it in an analysis of actual episodes of teaching and learning and to

relate it to strategies or discursive techniques used by teachers.

Whether self-consciously or not, teachers organise the patterns of communication in

their classrooms in different ways, and these may affect how learning takes place.

Retrieved on 7th January 2014, from: http://labspace.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=445539&section=1.2