Gregory S. Hadley
A fact of life is that the
majority of the students who graduate from Japanese universities will probably speak
little English once in their new jobs. Studies done by researchers such as
Halvoresen (1995) show that the most Japanese University graduates use English
much in the same way their ancestors did during the Meiji era: to read or write
letters in English (or these days, to send faxes). As a result, we as teachers should expect learners not only to be able to
read authentic texts, but also to write in ways that can clearly express their
ideas to native readers.
There are the traditional
methods that usually involve a very heavy emphasis on English grammar,
vocabulary and sentence construction. And while these elements of the English
language are very important, we do a disservice to our students if we teach
only these aspects of the language. There is something lacking in merely
teaching about the building blocks of written text. What is missing is a
larger model of what goes into successfully handling text itself. This larger
framework where we find solutions to understanding and teaching text beyond the
sentence level is called Written Discourse Analysis (WDA).
This article will cover
various aspects of written discourse analysis, followed by an demonstration
analysis of an actual text. Afterwards, I will explain the implications WDA has
for language teaching.
McCarthy (1993) states that
written discourse analysis is not a new method for teaching languages. Rather,
it is " . . . a fundamentally different way of looking at language
compared with sentence-dominated models" (p. 170). WDA theorizes that
written text (in this case, English written text) is naturally organized into
several types of patterns.
Written text conforms to rules
that most successful writers unconsciously follow and native readers unconsciously
expect to find. Some of the characteristic patterns in written discourse
analysis are the Problem/Solution structure, discussed in Hoey (1994), the
Claim/Counterclaim structure covered in McCarthy (1993), and the
General/Specific structure discussed in Coulthard (1994).
By studying the textual and
lexical elements of these texts, one can learn to regularly recognize the
overall structure of a text. For example, if one finds lexical signals that
indicate situation-problem-response-result (Hoey, 1994:31), we can know with
some certainty that we are dealing with a Problem-Solution test. When one
identifies vocabulary items that signal doubt or skepticism, (words such as appear,
suggests, speculation, etc.), we know we are dealing with a
Claim-Counterclaim structure. In fact, McCarthy (1993:31) goes as far as to say
that, while the sequence of these structures may be varied, we should always
find all the elements we are looking for in a well-formed text.
I will now identify
demonstrate how written discourse analysis can identify larger text structures
and other pertinent discourse features in an actual text. While highlighting
the items the writer uses to express his opinion, I will employ many of the
technical terms used in WDA. In most cases, these terms will be defined while I
explain the analysis of the text.
|
Text For Analysis |
|
While there may be some argument over details, palaeontologists are
generally agreed on the developments that human beings underwent on the
African plains from the emergence of Australopithecus about 3.7
million years ago. The development of tools, of a hunter-gatherer economy,
and of radically new social structures constitute a process which has been
proved beyond much reasonable doubt and is now largely uncontested. There are
major disagreements, however, amongst those attempting to explain what
happened in the period immediately preceding this - the astonishing
transition from 'man-like ape' to the 'ape-like men' of 3 million years B.P. |
|
The problem centres around what is popularly known as the 'missing
link'. We have fossil evidence of man-like apes (Ramapithecus) which
lived in the East African Rift Valley around 9 million years ago. There are
relatively plentiful fossilised remains of Australopithecus , Homo
Habilis and Homo Erectus , from the same area and dating from 3.7
million years B.P. onwards. Analysis of bones from these later anthropoids
suggests that they already exhibited many of the features which typify modern
man : they were, for example, bipedal. But there is a gap (what Leakey
described as the 'yawning void') in the fossil record for the intervening 5
million years and, in the absence of hard evidence from this crucial period,
serious - and often bitter - disputes persist between competing theories of
human evolution. |
|
The most widely accepted theory attempts to account for the major
changes in proto-human physiology in terms of adaptations to climatic change
on the African continent at the time. A progressively hotter, drier climate
and the consequent replacement of forests by grassy plains (savannah)
over large areas of the land mass meant that certain species of ape were
gradually deprived of what had been their natural environment. It is argued
that early hominids were descendants of those apes which emerged from the
dwindling forests onto the plains - a move which inevitably meant alterations
in diet, precipitating a development from vegetarian to carnivore and,
ultimately, to hunter. |
|
According to the 'Savannah Hypothesis', all the startling
evolutionary changes leading from ape to human proceed from here. The
proto-humans learned to stand on two legs in order to see further - providing
'early warning' of the approach of predators across the plain. Standing
upright left their hands free to make tools and - as their tool-making skills
progressed - bipedalism had further advantages, since they could now run
after prey and carry weapons at the same time. Hunting on the hot plains was
uncomfortable for creatures which had evolved in the shady forest, and they
shed most of their body hair to prevent overheating. The developing
hunter-gatherer economy led to the need for new social arrangements - particularly
regarding the care of the young - which made monogamous 'pair-bonding' a
positive survival behaviour. The savannah theory claims that ventro-ventral
(face-to-face, literally 'belly-to-belly') sex, which is almost
unheard-of among other primates, developed as a means to increase sexual
intimacy and thus cement the pair-bond. |
|
The 'Aquatic Hypothesis' - originally put forward by Sir Alister
Hardy and more recently associated with Elaine Morgan* - does not reject the
savannah theory as such. The centrality of climatic change and the
transformations undergone on the savannah from 3_ million years BP onwards
are not disputed. However, the theory takes as its starting point the
contention that other factors must have been involved. It observes that
numerous animals have survived on the African savannah and evolved into
efficient carnivorous predators without ever developing bipedalism : after
all, four legs are generally much faster than two and in evolutionary terms
it's difficult to see how a little extra vision would have offset the loss of
speed. Nor have other animals found it necessary to shed their fur ; indeed,
a hairy coat provides better protection against both daytime sun and
night-time cold than the apparently deviant evolutionary strategy adopted by
the 'naked ape'. A number of other primates practise pair-bonding (gibbons
are in fact much more strictly monogamous than humans) but continue to
copulate ventro-dorsally, as is the norm for almost all terrestrial animals. |
|
It is not, however, the norm for marine creatures, and it is this
insight which lies at the heart of the aquatic theory. Simply stated, the
aquatic hypothesis is that during the catastrophic changes in the African
climate, the man-like apes initially moved not from forest to plain but from
the land into the water - just as the precursors of modern marine mammals
must at one time have done. Unlike the ancestors of the whale and the
dolphin, these proto-humans later moved back onto dry land, but the creatures
which emerged from the water were much changed. Various pre-adaptations to
the physiological differences between them and other primates had already
been introduced, and it was these which led to the development of homo
sapiens on the savannah. |
|
In their account of bipedalism, proponents of the aquatic theory
stress the fact that no mammal - with the single exception of man - has ever
developed the habit of walking and running on two feet, with its spine
perpendicular to the ground. Even those which do occasionally stand on their
hind legs (and it is admitted that this constitutes an advantage for spotting
predators on the plain) invariably drop back onto all fours in order to run.
The argument proceeds by noting that a four-legged creature, during the initial
stages of adaptation to an aquatic environment, would naturally tend to stand
upright in order to keep its head out of the water to breathe, and that it
would be better able to do so due to the buoyancy that water provides. A
prolonged period (we are talking here about several million years) standing
in, and/or 'treading', water would result in a shift in the creature's centre
of gravity, in the development of a more flexible spine, and in an altered
pelvic structure. All these would make it more difficult for such an animal
to revert to quadropedalism on its return to a terrestrial existence. |
|
With regard to the loss of body hair, they point to the fact that
fur, once wet, provides poor insulation, this purpose being far better served
by fat under the skin - hence the thick layer of blubber in relatively
hairless marine mammals like the whale, and a lot of subcutaneous fat in
wallowing creatures like the hippopotamus and pig. Subcutaneous fat is
demonstrably far more extensive in humans than in any other ape, indeed homo
sapiens is the only primate which lays down surplus fat in a layer under
its skin. As for our odd predilection for ventro-ventral sex, the aquatic
contention is that this is only peculiar in land-dwelling animals : if humans
are seen as 'aquatic apes' then the practice no longer appears unusual. The
vast majority of marine mammals copulate ventro-ventrally, and the exceptions
are largely those species which come ashore to mate. |
|
It is thus proposed that bipedalism, loss of body hair, and
ventro-ventral sexual intercourse are in fact evidence for an aquatic, or
semi-aquatic, phase in human evolution. The aquaticists claim that the
similarities between human beings and their marine relatives (a number of
other shared features include the shedding of tears and a diminution in the
olfactory sense) are simply too numerous and too striking to be mere
coincidence. The 'missing link' is, from this point of view, best
characterised as homo aquaticus ." |
|
* see Morgan's The
Descent of Woman (1972), The Aquatic Ape (1982) and The Scars
of Evolution (1990). |
|
(from Holland & Lewis, Written Discourse, 1994, p. 50-54) |
Such a difficult and technical
article might seem impossible to analyze for text structures, but there is a
pattern to this text. It is best understood as a Claim/Counterclaim structure,
as detailed by McCarthy (1993:161). Claim-Counterclaim patterns are often used
to refute opposition in political, ideological, theological and scientific
literature. The writer uses this pattern as a platform to convincingly cast
doubt upon the generally-accepted claims of the Savannah Theory of human
evolution. He attempts to replace them with the counterclaims of the Aquatic
Theory of evolution.
Holland and Lewis (1994:36-39)
define Claim-Counterclaim patterns as having the following characteristics: A
section of solidarity or "common ground" with the opposition, a
section (or sections) where the claims of the opposition are presented (usually
in an unfavorable light), and a section where the writer's beliefs are stated
as counterclaims. The words or clauses which perform these functions are called
signals. This Common Ground-Claim-Counterclaim structure can clearly be
lifted from the sample text by studying those signals.
Some signals for "common
ground" are: "...palaeontologists are generally agreed on the
developments . . . ", " . . . a process which has been proved
. . . ", " . . . and it is largely uncontested." This
writer combines these strong lexical signals with active verb tenses to develop
a rapport with his audience. He must first show that both he and they begin at
the same place, speak the same language, and are part of the same community of
learning. Verbs are also in a finite tense, which Winter (1994:62) says can
cause the readers (or "decoders") to trust what is written as
truthful.
Before the writer can begin
any outright refutation of the claims, he must prepare his readers by using
contrastive discourse markers. Contrastive discourse markers (such as
"but" or "however") are lexical items that cause the reader
to feel suspicious about the claims of the opposition. Prominent contrast
signals in this text are: "There are major disagreements, however,
. . . ", "But there is a gap . . . ", "It is not, however,
the norm for marine creatures . . . ", and "With regard to the
loss of body hair . . . ".
"But" and
"however", which McCarthy (1993:31) calls adversative, feature
prominently after the statement of several claims. Immediately after stating
the common ground, the writer inserts constrastive discourse markers to
literally erase any feeling of a consensus the reader might develop from the
strong verb tenses in the common ground section.
The writer has already sown
the seeds of doubt, and now begins to present the claims of his opposition in a
negative light. Here begins a section of text that Winter (1994) would call a
Hypothetical-Real structure: "But the moment a clause has modals or any
other signal of suspension of fact we enter into hypotheticality of some kind.
What this means is that hypothetical and real is the marked structure, with the
hypothetical as the key sign that real is potentially next" (p. 62). All
of the claim signals carried strong elements of hypotheticality: Among claim
signals were the following: "It is argued that early hominids . . .
" and "The savannah theory claims that . . . ", "The
most widely accepted theory attempts to account . . . ",
"Analysis of bones . . . suggest . . . "
Many of these verbs are what
Leech (1983) would call non-factive or counter-factive, words
that neither state truth nor deny it, but may indirectly suggest something is
false or untrustworthy.
The writer also makes use of
matching clause relations. Winter (1994:50-51) explains matching clause
relations are clauses that introduce denial and correction. The clause "
. . . not from forest to plain, but from land to water . . . " is a
classic example of how matching sequences state, deny and correct the
information one wishes to refute. These and other hypothetical claim markers
cast the opposition's current situation in a light of doubt and unreliability.
He now prepares the readers to find solace in the "real"
counterclaims that he will soon offer.
In every case, the claims of
this article are stated by the author in the passive voice. Hodge and Kress
(1993) show how passive modals are usually interpreted quite negatively for
native speakers of English. Hodge and Kress (1993:23) also show that when an
actor in a text is referred to only abstractly and nominalized (a move called transformation),
readers will subconsciously distance themselves from that nominalized actor,
and focus upon the active character in the text, for good or ill.
In this instance, we see the
Savannah Theorists become frequently nominalized and passivised, such as in the
previously stated sentence: "It is argued that . . . ". Who argues?
We never find out, for we are being prepared for the real counterclaims and the
real scholars, who will be introduced shortly.
The writer spends only about
1/3 of the article discussing the Savannah Theory's claims, but in the
remaining 2/3 of the article, offers counterclaims in active, affirming verb
tenses that encourage agreement, solidarity and a sympathetic acceptance of the
Aquatic Hypothesis. Most of the verbs would be described by Leech (1983) as factive,
to assert that something is true. Sentences such as "the ancestors of the
whales and dolphins" will undoubtedly give warm fuzzies to readers with
any environmentalist concerns.
Some counterclaim markers are:
". . .proponents of the aquatic theory stress the fact . . .
", " . . . the argument proceeds by noting . . . ", and
" . . . they point to the fact that . . . ", " . . . the
theory takes as its starting point . . . ", and " . . . they point
to the fact that . . . ". To give the counterclaim signaling even more
weight, the Aquatic Hypothesis is shown to have the backing of well-written
authors and titled people (Elaine Morgan, Sir Alistair Hardy). We do not know
who put forth the older theory. In the counterclaim section, we see many
cataphoric references ("read on and find out messages" (McCarthy
1993:42)) as "and . . . and", which keeps the readers by necessity
following the counterclaims until they reach their conclusion in a well-placed
logical sequence marker (see Winter 1994:52) "It is thus proposed . . .
", giving the general impression of the counterclaim sections as credible,
organized, logical, respected and truthful.
As is often the case, other
textual patterns can be found inside a larger pattern. McCarthy (1993:159)
notes how imbedded patterns serve as supporting actors by dedicating the best
of their textual characteristics to strengthen the complete text. There were
many General-Specific components in the sample text. A General-Specific pattern
starts with a broad general statement, which Coulthard (1994) calls an enumerable,
and then offers more detailed statements to back up the first general statement
(called matching relations by Coulthard (1994)). One good example of a
General-Specific structure is found in the first paragraph of the text:
General Statement (enumerable): ". .
.palaeontologists are generally agreed on the developments that human beings
underwent on the African plains from the emergence of Australopithecus about
3.7 million years ago.
Specific Statement (matching particular): "The
development of tools . . . ".
Specific Statement (matching particular): ". . .a
hunter-gatherer economy . . . ".
Specific Statement (matching particular): ". .
.radically new social structure . . . ".
The writer uses the
General-Particular mainly as a platform for building his case for the Aquatic
Hypothesis. By making sweeping statements and then backing them up by further
detail and/or questions, he continues to successfully weaken the base of the
Savannah Theory while strengthening the possibility for acceptance of his
alternate theory.
There are also
Problem-Solution structures in the text. This pattern allows writers " . .
. to organize what they have to say as solutions to problems in
terms of the four-part structure Situation-Problem-Solution-Evaluation . . .
" (Hoey, 1994:8). Our writer uses the Problem-Solution pattern to
highlight his perceived problems with the widely-accepted Savannah Theory,
while offering his Aquatic Hypothesis as the solution in form of a
counterclaim.
Here is an example an imbedded
Problem-Solution pattern:
Situation: "There are major disagreements,
however, amongst those attempting to explain what happened in the period
preceding this - the astonishing transition from 'man-like ape' to the
'ape-like man' of 3 million years B.P."
Problem: "The problem centres around what
is popularly known as the 'missing link'.
Solution: "The 'missing link' is, from
this point of view, best characterised as homo aquaticus."
As we can see, the situation
is in the present tense, so that the readers know that, even as they read,
unrest is brewing in the halls of academia. Already we are prepared to find out
what the problem is by the lexical signal of "major disagreements".
Further on, the problem is clearly stated: where is the "missing
link"? Where is the answer to all the questions that have daunted
evolutionists for years? Later in the text, we finally get the solution of homo
aquaticus through the lexical signals of " . . . is . . . best
characterized as . . . ". The writer states the solution only after
numerous counterclaims, enumerable, matching particulars transformations and
many other devices had been used to prepare the reader. If the solution had
been offered at the beginning of the text without the preparation, undoubtedly
it would not be as well received as at the end of the text.
WDA reveals the underlying
meanings of written language in new and exciting ways. We have learned in this
example how the writer cleverly used Claim-Counterclaim structure to encourage
skepticism and dissatisfaction with the popular Savannah Theory. While
appearing to not have any opinion of his own, he highlighted the perceived
weaknesses of the Savannah Theory, and competently showed the strengths of the
Aquatic Theory of human evolution.
Of course, not all linguists
(Hodge and Kress, 1993) are confident that textual structures such as the ones
we have identified are always so clearly recognized. Others feel the discourse
structures "discovered" are often the dubious interpretations of
zealous applied linguists bent upon making a name for themselves in their
profession.
However, I am confident that
as linguistic research (such as the Birmingham COBUILD project) will show not
only that these discourse patterns are very common in the English language, but
that new and more defined textual structures will be discovered in the near
future. Yet it is wise to remember that WDA is still only a theory which
attempts to explain observed phenomena in language. And, as we all know,
theories are subject to change as more data becomes available. But there is
little doubt in my mind that WDA sheds light on the inner workings of authentic
texts. Written discourse analysis has great potential to become the cornerstone
for new theories that will even more accurately describe the linguistic
processes of textual discourse.
Undoubtedly, WDA would be welcome
in writing modules of Japanese University English classes. A large part of
education in Japan already involves the learning and processing of patterns.
Peak's research (1986) identifies three basic training practices
which were universally observed in Japanese preschool and elementary schools:
"*Calculated arousal of
learner motivation to acquire a specific skill and become a member of its
social setting.
*Repeated practice of
precisely defined component routines until they become automatic.
*Development of
self-monitoring of learning performance" (p.99).
By the time students reach
Junior High School, this learning process is automatic. One could argue that
the culture framework prepares Japanese students to accept the structural
nature of English text, once it has been shown to them. Care must be taken to
prevent students from searching for an easy system which will enable them to
automatically write good English without cognitive thought. Such an attitude
would certainly cripple the impetus launched by written discourse analysis.
The following is an example
how teaching elements from WDA can improve student reports. The text samples
are both from the same first year Niigata University student. I asked my class
to tell me if they believed in ghosts.
I believe in ghosts. But I
haven't ever seen them. Ghost's programs are often used on TV at night in
summer. I often watch them. Though I know that watching ghost's programs are
dreadful, I often watch them. Many people say on TV that they have seen ghosts.
I believe their saying. When I heard their saying, I found that good ghost and
bad ghost exist over us. I have thought that ghosts are very dreadful for a
long time. Perhaps many people are also afraid of them. Ghosts usually appear
at night. So I am afraid of night too. However, I think that ghosts are not
only dreadful but also protect us. After men died, they become ghosts. I
believe people who become ghosts look after us somewhere. That is why I believe
ghosts though I haven't seen them. But I have not wanted to see ghosts.
Even though the grammatical
mistakes are minor, it is very difficult to understand exactly what the student
wants to say. A few weeks later, I introduced my students to the
General-Specific pattern in English. Afterwards, I gave them another writing
assignment, this time to describe themselves using vocabulary words from the
text. Here is a sample from the same student:
Generally speaking, it is
said that people know everything about themselves. But I don't think so. And I
asked my boyfriend about my personality. I hear he thinks I am easygoing.
Because I hear and talk in a slowly tone. But it seems that he loves my slowly
tone. Then I hear I walk slowly and I always keep cool.
And I hear he thinks I am
cheerful. Because I hear I always smile. My smile face is his favorite. I hear
I soften the atmosphere of the place...And I hear he thinks I am dependable. He
depends on me. I always keep secrets of others. I listen to speaking my friend
carefully, and I lend things I borrow surely. Is that the reason I am
dependable?
While there are still
grammatical errors in the writing, the overall structure follows one that is
normally acceptable to native speakers. This time she is able to communicate
her ideas more clearly. Not only this student, but a majority of the class
members showed a marked improvement in their compositions.
McCarthy (1993) feels that
these concepts (such as lexical relations) can be taught early in language
learner development, and that students can be trained to recognize text along
discourse lines, making writing easy for both them and the teacher. I have
already shown this can be done with students in my classes at Niigata
University. Martin (1985:81) feels that teachers can make use of text
structures when we evaluate student essays, and choose textbooks that will be
more open to a written discourse analysis approach. Cook (1989) offers all
sorts of activities that teachers can use which takes advantages of the
insights gained from written discourse analysis.
This is a dynamic new way to
teach text writing. While innovative ideas such as written discourse analysis
will be met with skepticism and resistance by some, and many will object on
traditional, theoretical and cultural grounds, it cannot be disproved that WDA
provides an innovative procedure for identifying patterns and teaching
composition. Written discourse analysis not only helps our students to become
better writers, who can communicate their ideas with force and clarity.
Cook, G. (1989) Written
Discourse. Oxford: OUP.
Coulthard, M. (1994) Advances
in Written Text Analysis. Routledge pp. 1-11.
Halvoresen, J. P. (1995) An
Analysis of Perceived EFL Needs of English Course Students. Kokugakuin Tanki Daigaku Kiyou. #13.
Hedge, T. (1988) Writing.
Oxford: OUP.
Hodge, R. & Kress, G.
(1993) (2nd Edition) Language as Ideology. London: Routledge.
Hoey, M. (1994)
"Signalling in Discourse: a Functional Analysis of a Common Discourse
Pattern in Written and Spoken English" Chap. 3 of Coulthard, M. (1994) Advances
in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge.
Holland, R. & Lewis A.
(1994) Written Discourse. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Leech, G. N. (1983) Principles
of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Martin, J.R. (1985) Factual
Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality. Deakin University Press.
McCarthy, M. (1993) Discourse
Analysis for Language Teachers.Cambridge University Press.
Neubauer, F. (ed.) 1983. Coherence
in Natural Language Texts. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Peak, L. (1986) "Training
Learning Skills and Attitudes in Japanese Early Education Settings." in
Fowler, W. (ed.) Early Experience and the Development of Competence: New
Directions for Child Development, 32. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Raimes, A. (1983) Techniques
in Teaching Writing. London: OUP.
Winter, E. (1994) "Clause
Relations as Information Structure: Two Basic Text Structures in English"
Chap. 4 of Coulthard, M. (1994) Advances in Written Text Analysis.
London: Routledge.
Student Sample Texts, Niigata
University 1st Year Conversation Course, 1995.