Critical discourse analysis: theory and applications

¶ … ESL Learning: Comparative Analysis of the works of N. Chomsky, M. Stubbs, and M. Halliday & R. Hasan

The prevalence of multiculturalism in American society today denotes an important phenomenon that is confronted by society and human culture -- the evolution of the English language as one of the dominant and oft-used languages in the world. As a response to the increased use and evolution of the English language, English as a Second Language (ESL) has been taught formally to individuals who want to become "competent" and "able" in communicating through the English language, both verbally and non-verbally.

The issue of communication competence as it relates to the ESL experience is an important issue in the field of linguistics today. This paper's objectives involves two important processes involved in learning ESL: (1) first, society's/culture's perceived communication competence of an individual learning ESL, and (2) the individual's adaptation and use of English as second language per se. The actual and perceived competence of the individual while communicating in the English language is discussed thoroughly in this paper -- more specifically centering the discussion on the concept of heterogenous (communication) competence. Drawing from the theories and concepts of linguists such as N. Chomsky, M. Stubbs, and M. Halliday & R. Hasan, the researcher posits that heterogenous communication competence is a pragmatic concept that is developed, ironically, from linguistic theories and concepts.

Heterogenous communication competence posits that communication, specifically ESL communication, is largely a culturally-dependent concept. That is, competence in the heterogenous communication competence concept is dependent not on the rules governing the English language, but instead, on the rules governing languages in general. This important distinction is made explicit in the critical discourse analysis section that will be tackled further in Chapter 3.

The case under study

The text used for the discourse analysis is a recollected story from a 6th grade ESL student, Marcella (observed last September 26, 2006). Marcella's background shows that she has been in the United States for 3 years and is under the ESL program for 2 years, with 45 minutes pull-out ESL program at school. As a communicator, Marcella primarily converses in Spanish at home. The following extracted text was generated from an observation of a reading comprehension activity in her ESL Language Arts class:

they heard 'em undergroung ca-cause they went through a hoyle -- a hole -- and they pulled a rock from underground and then they saw a wave going in -- that the hole -- and they brought a table and the wave brought 'em out the k-tunnel and then the- they went away and then-uh-m-ah-k back on the top and it was-uh-going under a bridge and they went-then the braves hit the- the bridge-they-all of it -th-then they looked there then they - then they were safe."

Analysis

Using the text in the previous chapter as the focus of the discourse analysis, different linguistic perspectives are applied to better understand how, linguistically, Marcella is a heterogeneously competent communicator of English as a second language. Works from Chomsky, Stubbs, and Halliday and Hasan demonstrate this argument, wherein a collective analysis of their arguments show that communication competence in the context of ESL is not exclusively bound to standard English language rules, but more generally (and on a wider scope), is actually bound to the standard rules of language. The texts that follow look into each linguist's theories and concepts on language learning, providing readers with a viewpoint of each linguist's position on Marcella's case.

Noam Chomsky: "Competence" and "performance" in the ESL context

Applying Marcella's case and text discourse under the scrutiny of Chomsky's theories and ideas on language and language learning, the central focus would be on grammar usage and phonetic representation. Chomsky provides two important insights into the concept of heterogenous communication competence. The first insight looks into his analysis of communication competence as it relates to the psychology of the individual (i.e., perceived competence of the individual). This insight actually provides the notion that ESL learners and speakers are not incompetent communicators per se -- that is, they only become incompetent within the locale of the language (English language).

In arguing this point, he distinctly provided definitions and a discussion on the difference between competence and performance (Chomsky, 1991:3):

Competence, in this sense, is not to be confused with performance. Performance, that is, what the speaker-hearer actually do, is based not only on his knowledge of the language, but on many other factors as well -- factors such as memory restrictions, inattention, distraction, nonlinguistic knowledge and beliefs, and so on. We may, if we like, think of the study of competence as the study of the potential performance of an idealized speaker-hearer who is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant factors.

From this distinction between competence and performance, it is apparent that Marcella's case, which is her perceived incompetent recall of a story read and comprehended, is not incompetent in the terms Chomsky has defined competence to be. That is, Marcella's competence can be analyzed if and only if she becomes "unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant factors" -- that is, devoid of any culture-dependent factors enumerated in the passage quoted. As an ESL student, Marcella is undergoing communication as a performance: a process that is a function of both Spanish and American cultures (languages).

Proof of Marcella's reading comprehension and recall as a "performance" is evidenced by the existence of misspelled words ("undergroung"), wrong word choice ("m-ah-k back on the top" and "braves"), and hesitation points in the communicator's recollection of the story. Illustratively, common knowledge would tell us that Marcella is incompetent communicatively because of these simple 'imperfections' in the narrative -- her lack of command of the English language. But defined in Chomsky's terms, these simple imperfections become 'accepted facts' that are common occurrences among learners of ESL.

In addition to this culture-bound perspective in looking at communication competence, Chomsky furthered his analysis to include that "[w]e cannot, in other words, characterize the internalized, mentally represented system of rules that we call "grammar" in terms of any other significant concept of psychology" (4). This means that though it is inevitable to link communication competence with the individual's mental competence, Chomsky warns us against doing so, for communication competence is not a proven manifestation of one's intellectual ability or psyche (unless, of course, the individual is diagnosed as having communication problems physiologically/biologically).

The second insight generated from these linguistic theories and concepts that Chomsky developed is the application of communication competence to the "bigger picture": the politics and power connected with one's communication competence. An important issue addressed in Chomsky's linguistics is the question of whether it is important to have an "idealized" communicator, which necessitates, of course, the concept of communication competence. This is because the vision of an "idealized" communicator is not applicable in real life, because all individuals as communicators are influenced and sometimes bound by the culture they were strongly influenced with. And because all communicators are culture-bound, all communication therefore are also culture-bound -- making communication and language susceptible to becoming a process, a performance (Smith, 1999:12).

Thus, to apply Marcella's case as a question of her competence / incompetence as a communicator means subjecting her to the problem of 'idealizing' her as a speaker-hearer or communicator. Because it is already a given fact that Marcella is strongly influenced by the Spanish language, the competence question is no longer relevant in her case, and, in Chomskyan terms, Marcella's performance as an ESL communicator becomes a more relevant and significant issue.

Michael Stubbs: Vocabulary generation & development and communication competence

Stubbs' analysis is primarily concerned with the individual's language use; however, his analysis is linked with Chomsky's in that they both subsist to the critical perspective in discussing discourse analysis as applied in the ESL context.

Stubbs' concern in linguistic analysis is, among others, the generation and development of vocabulary among English communicators. Much of his researches centered on providing quantitative analyses of words and their use in the English language, texts compared against a universe of English texts. The linguist's works on vocabulary generation and development is related to the issue of linguistic competence, defined technically as the communicator's "ability to recognize that some words are 'ordinary' English words, in some sense, whilst [sic] others are rare, exotic, foreign, specialist, regional..." (Stubbs, 1986).

It is worth noting that while Chomsky stated that communication competence is not a proven manifestation of one's intellectual level, Stubbs in his analysis goes further to claim that to a certain degree, competence is linked with, not with intelligence per se, but to verbal intelligence. That is, the linguist granted that indeed, "there is a significant correlation between vocabulary size and both reading comprehension and overall verbal intelligence (though there is no real agreement at all on whether vocabulary influences IQ and reading comprehension, or vice versa, or whether the relation is indirect)."

This important generalization from Stubbs' analysis demonstrates another important insight into the issue of communication competence: that under Stubbs' terms, competence can be gauged quantitatively through an individual's vocabulary knowledge (i.e., verbal intelligence), regardless of the communicator's cultural background. His attempt to quantify competence is an example of how, holding all other things equal (such as cultural factors influential to language learning and development), competence can still be ascertained objectively and in the context of the specific language being taught or learned.

From Stubbs' perspective, Marcella's competence becomes an important issue. As an ESL student, Marcella's competence is ascertained on the vocabulary she knows and her usage of the English vocabulary in recollecting a story as a language learning activity. Most noticeable in Marcella's communication was her use of "then" to signal continuity in her narrative, or to demonstrate a series of actions she depicted in her recollection. The lack of other words to substitute "then" as a marker of continuity in the narrative signifies her incompetence as a communicator of the English language, primarily because she lacked the knowledge of other English words that can be substituted or act as replacement to the connector "then."

In addition, using the word "m-ah-k" ("make") in the phrase, "m-ah-k back on the top" can be interpreted as 'climb back to the top,' in Marcella's narrative. The use of "make" instead of "climb" is another sign of her linguistic incompetence, because she was unable to use the appropriate English word to complete the thought in the story she was trying to recollect and recreate. Thirdly, using "braves" instead of "waves" gives a whole new meaning to the narrative, a communication confusion that the reader would eventually understand, if s/he applies the use of the word in the context of the narrative.

In effect, Marcella's communication incompetence is marked by her wrong word choice, limited knowledge of the English vocabulary, and inability to achieve cohesion in her narrative/story. Stubbs' analysis points to these factors as the determinants of her communication incompetence, these very factors that are considered irrelevant, initially, when applied to Chomskyan linguistics. From this analysis of Stubbs' view of communication competence, it becomes apparent that Chomsky and Stubbs operate under different methods and theoretical views when discussing communication competence as it relates to the critical perspective (i.e., critical discourse analysis).

M. Halliday & R. Hasan: Communication competence and social relations

Looking into the meaning of texts and language as a communication tool, Halliday and Hasan how meanings are generated in second language acquisition, a situation appropriate to the ESL context applied in Marcella's case. In the previous sections, contrasting forms of analysis became apparent with Chomsky's and Stubb's linguistic theories and concepts. Chomsky assumed a more conciliatory tone in his explication of the dynamics surrounding ESL learning and communication competence, while Stubbs provided a quantitative and more defined measure of ascertaining communication competence (i.e., in relation to verbal intelligence).