their ability in using their language and equip themselves with basic skills of teaching learning English.
2.3 DISCOURSE
To make the meaning of discourse clear, in this part, I will unfold the basic concept of discourse, discourse analysis and a classroom discourse. Here is the
definition of the terms above by some linguists:
2.3.1 The Basic Concepts of Discourse
Regarding the concept of discourse, Fasold 1994:65 in Schiffrin 1994, defines that a discourse is the study of language in use. While according to Crystal
1992: 25, in Nunan 1993: 5 states that discourse as a continuous stretch of especially spoken language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent
unit, such as sermons, arguments, jokes or narratives. Another expert, Cook 1989: 56, in Nunan 1993:3 points out that discourse is stretches of language
perceived to be meaningful, unified and purposive. However, Nunan 1993:6 says that discourse is the interpretation of the
communicative event in context. He separates discourse from the term text that refers to any written record of communicative event that involves oral language
such as : sermon, a casual conversation, a shopping transaction or written language for example; a poem, a newspaper, an advertisement, a wall poster, a
shopping list, a novel. Some experts argue that ‘discourse’ is language in action while text is written record that interacts the writer and the reader. Other expert,
Stubbs 1993:1 mentions that discourse is language above the sentence or above the clause renders an abstract view for the teachers of English.
Based on the definition of the experts above it can be said that discourse is the application of language and culture consisting as little as one word or two
words. The statements stated by Stubbs and Schriffrin are relevant to the subject matter defined above as a system either socially and culturally organized of any
speaking which is realized through particular functions. Besides, the definition about discourse made by Cook is also included in the study as Cook has given a
view of discourse as language in use for communication.
2.3.2 Discourse Analysis
Some experts still argue about discourse. They say that discourse is language in action while text is the written record of that interaction which leads
the writer to explore more and makes further clarification of text analysis and discourse analysis. Brown and Yule in Schriffin 1994:31 point out that
discourse is the analysis of language in use. Their opinion is supported by Celce Murcia et al. 2000:4 say that discourse analysis is minimally the study of
language in use that extend beyond sentence boundaries. Referring to the concept above Nunan 1997:7 also states that discourse
analysis is the analysis of language in use that the aim of analytical write is to show and to interpret the relationship between regularities of language and the
meanings and the purpose realized through discourse. While discourse analysis according to John Stone 2001:2 is the study of language, in daily sense which
most people use the form. Swales 1997: 1 defines that genre type of text analysis is a means of studying spoken or written discourse.
Based on the fact above, it is obvious that text analysis or discourse analysis is a medium of analyzing spoken or written discourse. It can be said that
there are no differences between discourse and text from language point of view. In this study, the discourse analysis is as device form of analyzing communicative
event, as the subject under this study is teachers’ scaffolding talks, which belong to spoken text type or spoken discourse.
2.3.3 Discourse Markers
Kategori