Poster Presentation

Using Discourse Analysis to Develop
L2 Learning Materials for Hands-on
Creative-Tourism Workshops

Mark Hammond
Kanazawa University
Giving verbal instructions for procedures involving the manipulation of physicalobjects is an essential component in a wide variety of contexts of English for
Occupational Purposes (EOP). This includes teaching others how to operatemachinery, use tools, handle materials, and do other aspects of hands-oninstruction. To better understand how speakers of English as a second or foreign
language (L2) cope with such tasks, discourse analysis may be used to unpackspoken texts so that features in the organization, style, and content of an EOP
may be identified (Brown, 2016), which in turn may support the development ofpedagogically valid teaching approaches and learning materials.
This paper outlines preliminary findings of an ongoing research project,which employs tools based on the rank scale of the Sinclair and Coulthard (1975)
analytical framework, to investigate how Japanese practitioners of traditional
crafts give technical instructions in L2 for the mediums of ceramics, metalcraft,and textile dying. The underlying goal of the study is to develop effective
language learning materials to help craft professionals with low-intermediate L2
proficiency give basic instructions in creative workshops targeted at international
tourists. With the expected increase in visitors in proximity to the Tokyo
Olympic Games in 2020, added-value tourism programs have become moresignificant elements of planning strategies of Japanese government ministries
involved in trade, culture, and tourism. ( Japan Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,123

Hammond

Transport and Tourism, 2016).
After describing the project’s background, method of data collection, andthe analytical framework used in the study, focus shifts to three salient patterns
found in four workshops taught in English by Japanese university students
majoring in traditional craft. Subsequently, conclusions are offered on how thefindings may help develop language learning materials that support the project’sobjectives.

Project BackgroundResearch was conducted as part of a three-year project, from 2016 to 2019, tosupport and encourage Japanese practitioners of traditional craftwork (kogei)
to offer hands-on workshops in English. Such workshops have been integrated
in creative-tourism efforts sponsored by public and private initiatives, including
the seven Japanese municipalities of the UNSECO Creative Cities Network.
The network defines successful workshops as those which not only provide
authentic experiences with the unique culture of a place, but also foster positive
interpersonal bonds between host and visitor (UNESCO, 2006).

Data Collection

The study’s primary source of data was collected at Kanazawa College of Art,
which offers courses in a variety of mediums of traditional Japanese craft. Fourworkshops were organized specifically for the project, each with one student
giving instruction to one participant. Adopting Yule’s (1997) terms concerningreferential communication tasks, the subjects are referred to as the sender, whoplays the role of workshop instructor, and the receiver, who follows the sender’sdirections.
Four students majoring in a craft were recruited to act as senders.
Communicative competence among the four varied slightly, but based on
observation the author estimated the spoken proficiency of all senders tobe roughly A2 on the CEFR scale (Council of Europe, 2001). Without any
preparatory language instruction, senders were asked to plan a one-hourworkshop, similar to commercial workshops promoted by the local municipal
124

Using Discourse Analysis, OnCUE Journal, 11(2), pages 123-130

government’s creative-tourism initiative (Kanazawa City, 2016). Finishedproducts consisted of a lapel pin made from brass, an indigo dyed handkerchief,and ceramic bowls using both hand-build and pottery-wheel techniques. Two
individual participants, both American and native-speakers of English, servedin the role of receiver. Participants did not meet each other until the actualworkshop. Data was collected by two video cameras and a back-up audio
recorder.
Additional data was collected at five workshops in various commercial venues
in Kyoto, with the author as the receiver. Focusing on the same craft mediums,
these workshops were taught by experienced professionals, with slightly higher
English proficiency than the Kanazawa students. Although field notes weretaken at all workshops, due to privacy and technical issues, audio recordings were
only possible at two locations, which prevented a full comparative analysis. The
Kyoto workshops, however, provided valuable insight to the genre of creativetourism workshops.

Method of Analysis

After transcribing approximately six hours of video from the four Kanazawa
workshops, a simplified version of the Francis and Hunston (1992) system ofanalysis was employed to subjectively categorize elements of the exchange
structure. Built on the Sinclair-Coulthard (1975) model, the framework isbased on a “rank scale”, starting with the lowest rank, act, which represents thebasic function of a spoken utterance or non-verbal communication (Francis& Hunston, 1992, p. 123). The framework provides 22 classifications of acts,
which may stand alone as the head structure or as pre- or post-head elements.
The next rank, move, is generally classified as either initiating (I), responsive(R), or follow up (F). Dynamic moves that both respond and initiate, such as
answering a question with a question for clarification, may be categorized as replyinitiate (R/I) or bound illicit (Ib). The third rank of exchange includes eliciting,informing, directing, clarifying, repeating, and re-initiating.
Although time-consuming, once the framework has been applied tothe transcript (Appendix), the categorized elements of the rank-scale can be125

Hammond

sorted, and general patterns of language use emerge. This makes it possible, tosome extent, to characterize the nature of the roles participants play in shaping
the discourse, by examining the frequency and function of acts, moves, andinitiated exchanges. The framework allowed for a rich analysis of the Kanazawa
workshops, especially concerning the rank of exchange.

Research Findings

Initial analysis showed a somewhat predictable picture (Table 1). In 305 total
exchanges initiated by senders, informing (56%) and directing (29%) were themost prominent. Moreover, receivers initiated 283 exchanges, most of whichwere either eliciting (46%) or clarifying (23%). In other words, senders explained
and gave commands, and receivers frequently asked questions to make sure they
could follow directions.
What proved more useful was further analysis of the less frequently occurring
categories of eliciting and clarifying exchanges made by Kanazawa senders,which accounted for only 14% of their total exchanges. After comparing theseexchanges to those in the Kyoto workshops, three salient problematic patterns
emerged: avoidance of conversational small-talk, infrequent use of temporalconjuncts as cohesive devices (e.g., now, next, then, after that), and a lack ofanalogy or paraphrasing to overcome gaps in lexical knowledge.
Table 1
Total Number of Exchanges Initiated by ParticipantsType of Exchange

Initiated by Sender

Initiated by Receiver

Inform168

85

Direct89

1

Elicit29

129

Clarify1066

Repeat92126

Using Discourse Analysis, OnCUE Journal, 11(2), pages 123-130

Avoidance of conversational small-talkAnalysis of eliciting exchanges in the Kyoto workshops revealed that senders
attempted to engage receivers by means of small-talk unrelated to instructionaltasks, such as, “How long are you staying in Kyoto?” or “Have you tried othercraft workshops?”. These conversational exchanges steered discourse towards
interpersonal communication, in line with UNESCO’s definition of creativetourism as previously described. Kyoto senders asked an average of seven smalltalk questions per workshop. In contrast, the Kanazawa senders almost completely
avoided initiating small-talk and generally were reluctant to communicate evenwhen receivers initiated conversational exchanges.
Infrequent use of temporal conjuncts
A second pattern was found in Kyoto senders’ use of a variety of phrases andtemporal conjuncts as cohesive devices, such as “First thing we have to do is…
“Next step is…” “So now we have to…” to signal forthcoming steps of instruction.
Kyoto senders also presented the workshop’s scheduled plan before instructioncommenced, by using multi-modal elements, such as diagrams, photos, video,and partially completed craft items. This was not the case in Kanazawa; although
two of the four senders used “at first” to commence instruction, all subsequent
steps were exclusively signaled by “and” as a temporal conjunct. This may havecontributed to a sense of the workshop as a single linear task, and it offers anexplanation why Kanazawa receivers’ frequently initiated exchanges that beganwith questions like “What’s next?”, “Should I keep going?”, and “Are we donenow?”.
Lack of analogy and paraphrasing to overcome gaps in lexical
knowledge
A third pattern emerged from analysis of the types of questions that Kanazawa
senders used in eliciting exchanges. The most frequently occurring questions
related to vocabulary, especially concerning imperative verbs that require using
one’s hands (Hammond, 2017). When faced with gaps in lexical knowledge,senders in Kanazawa chiefly relied on appeals for assistance in Japanese, forexample, “How do you say hasamu in English?”, and very few attempts were made127

Hammond

to use available lexical items to paraphrase or make analogies. In comparison,Kyoto senders often engaged in metaphorical reasoning by paraphrasing or using
analogy as communicative strategies, such as “like a jellyfish” to describe theproper form of clay molding and “same as tea bag” to instruct dipping fabric intodye.

Implications for learning material development

In summary, the findings of the study may be useful to achieve the project’s
goal to develop learning materials in three ways. First, materials should include
exercises for learners to improve their ability to initiate and participate in small
talk. This may include asking simple conversational questions, as well as prepared
anecdotes. Secondly, materials should emphasize the importance of signaling
sequence of instruction by focusing on temporal conjuncts to mark procedural
steps and raising awareness of multi-modal elements as a device to convey overallplans. Finally, materials should highlight paraphrasing, metaphor, and otherdevices to strategically overcome lexical deficiencies.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science(Kaken Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research-C 16K02879).

References

Brown, J. D. (2016). Introducing needs analysis and English for Specific Purposes.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference forlanguages: Learning, teaching, and assessment. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
Francis, G., & Hunston, S. (1992). Analyzing everyday conversation. In M.
Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp. 123-161).
London, England: Routledge.
Hammond, M. (2017). Developing a diagnostic test of verbs for hands-on craft
workshops. Studies of Language and Culture, 21, 25-41.
128

Using Discourse Analysis, OnCUE Journal, 11(2), pages 123-130

Japan Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. (2016).
Inbound Travel Promotion Project (Visit Japan Project). Retrieved from:http://www.mlit.go.jp/kankocho/en/shisaku/kokusai/vjc.html
Kanazawa City. (2016). Kanazawa traditional arts and crafts. Kanazawa, Japan:
Kanazawa Craftwork Business Creation Agency. Retrieved from https://visitkanazawa.jp/files/moretocheck/downloads/en/kanazawa_traditional_arts_and_crafts_en.pdf
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The
English used by teachers and pupils. London, England: Oxford UniversityPress.
UNESCO. (2006). Towards sustainable strategies for creative tourism.
(Publication No. CLT/CEI/CID/2008/RP/66 01/11/2006). Retrieved
from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001598/159811e.pdf
Yule, G. (1997). Referential communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Author bio

Mark Hammond is an associate professor of the Foreign Language Studies Divisionof Kanazawa University’s Institute of Liberal Arts and Sciences. His interest in
ESP for creative industries comes from his previous position of adjunct instructor atKanazawa College of Art. He has a master’s degree in TESOL from the Universityof Birmingham (UK). hammond@staff.kanazawa-u.ac.jp
Received: September 30, 2017
Accepted: November 11, 2018129

Hammond

Appendix
Sample of the modified Francis and Hunston (1992) frameworkused in the study

Actstructure

Movestructure

Exchange

S: At firstmarker

predirectIDirect

please decide yourdesign.

direct

head

R:Ok.

receivehead

acknowledge

R

S: Cutting youwant is ok.

informhead

informI

Round is very
easy.

commentpost

R: Yeah, maybe around.

confirm

head

acknowledge

R

S: Round?

loop

headelicit

Ib

R: Yeah, I kind ofwant to/inform

head

informR

S: Or square isalso.

informhead

informI

R: Well, let’s see.

receivehead

acknowledge

R

S: You want?

neutralproposalheadelicit

IElicitOr triangle, demo
anything is ok.

commentpost

R: Anything isok?

returnhead

elicitIb

Clarify

S: Sure.

informhead

informR

DialogueNotes. S = sender; R = receiver; I = initiate; Ib = bound initiate; R = response

130

InformRepeatInform