Classroom Interaction
This Section reviews the theory of classroom interaction which explores definitions and
explanations about interaction in the classroom settings, EFL classroom in particular. Section
2.2 explores some foundations and theories related to classroom interaction research. And
section 2.3 draws the theories of systemic functional linguistics (SFL) in which systemic
functional grammar (SFG) is used as the framework of the data analysis.
2.1 Classroom Interaction
School is an important place for students to learn not only the values and rules of the
surrounding educational community but also of the society at large. The improvement of
pupils‘ interactional and social skill has been seen as an important aim for education
(Allwright & Bailey 1991, van Lier 1989, Sinclair & Coulthard 1975). Tsui (1995) defines
classroom interaction as the interaction between teacher and learners, and among learners, in
the classroom. Classroom interaction is a central and essential part of this study, as it is a
means by which the actual construction of interaction between teacher and students can be
concretely examined, “Interaction between teacher and students is an essential part of
teaching learning process‖ (Inamullah, 2005). It is important to be stressed that this study is
focused only on teacher talk as one of major parts in classroom interactions. Description of
classroom interaction, Tsui furthermore states that it is focused initially on the language used
by teacher, particularly teacher questions and learner responses elicited teachers‘ feedback
and turn-allocation behavior. These features were examined in the light of how they affected
interaction and the opportunities for learners to engage in language production. In traditional
language classroom, interaction is characterized by a rigid pattern, like the acts of asking
questions, instructing and correcting students‘ mistakes. Also, teachers are the one who
choose and initiate topic of conversation and restrict students‘ responses. These sorts of
phenomena can be found in Tsui‘s (1985) study of Hong Kong secondary English school.
Recent studies have paid more attention to learner talk, examining not only the language
produced by learners in response to the teacher, but also their communication strategies, and
the relation between task types, learner interaction and opportunities for negotiating meaning
(Brown, 2001; Tsui, 1995, in Nunan, 2001: p.120).
Language classrooms can be seen as sociolinguistic environments (Cazden, 1988) and
discourse communities (Hall and Verplaetse, 2000) in which interaction is believed to
contribute to learners‘ language development. According to a review of studies in the area of
classroom interaction and language learning presented by Hall and Verplaetse (2000),
interactive processes are not strictly individual or equivalent across learners and situations;
language learning is a social activity jointly constructed, and intrinsically linked to learners‘
repeated and regular participation in classroom activities. According to Allwright‘s (1984,
p.158) claims on the importance of classroom interaction in language learning, in FL lessons
it is ―inherent in the very notion of classroom pedagogy itself‖. We cannot claim to know
nearly enough about what it is about language classrooms that enable classroom language
learners to develop, more or less well, their control of a second or foreign language.
And yet our collective experience as professionals does lead us to believe that success, or
failure, in classroom language learning typically has something, if not absolutely everything,
to do with the nature of the interaction that takes place during lessons. It makes good sense,
therefore, for us to want to try to understand the contribution of classroom interaction to
language development. This has indeed been the focus, under a number of different headings,
for a considerable amount of work over the last few decades (for example: Allwright, 1976,
1984a, 1984b; Long, 198; 1983;Swain, 1985). Long‘s Interaction Hypothesis (1985) argues
that negotiation of meaning in verbal interactions contributes to the generation of input
favorable for second language development, and several studies have built upon the effect of
negotiation of meaning on second language acquisition (Gass and Varonis, 1994; Mackey
and Philip, 1998; Pica, 1988, 1994, in Consolo, 2006)). In Ellis‘ review (1999) of the updated
version of Long‘s Interaction Hypothesis (1996) two views of interaction are incorporated in
the revised version of the theory that was presented by Long a decade earlier: an
interpersonal process, to help learners notice relevant features in the input, and an
intrapersonal activity, which involves different types of processing operations for learners to
acquire the negotiated input. Student participation in classroom interaction/verbal interaction
is seen here also based on Allwright‘s (1984, p.160-161) three types of oral engagement
language lessons. In the most frequent type, called ‗compliance‘, students‘ utterances are
very much dependent on the teacher‘s management of classroom communication, for
example, when they reply to the teacher‘s questions. In the second type, known as
‗navigation‘, learners take the initiative to overcome communication breakdowns, as in
requests for clarification of what has been said. This may be seen as a simpler type of
negotiation of meaning that can help comprehension and may contribute to language
development. The less frequent type is ‗negotiation‘, and when it occurs, the teacher‘s and
the students‘ roles may become less unbalanced, and interlocutors attempt to reach decision
making by consensus.
2.1.1 The Teacher
Focusing on the language used by teachers in the classroom, teacher talk is important not
only for the organization of the classroom but also for the process of acquisition (Nunan,
1989; 1998; Ellis, 1994; Hadley, 2000; Harmer, 2007).
Following is a description about teacher talk in classroom interaction. The explanation is
centered on teacher part in the interaction which is supported by other theories.
2.1.1.1 The Definition of Teacher Talk
For foreign language learners ， classroom is the main place where they are frequently
exposed to the target language. The kind of language used by the teacher for instruction in
the classroom is known as teacher talk (TT). For this term, Longman Dictionary of Language
Teaching and Applied Linguistics defines it as ―that variety of language sometimes used by
teachers when they are in the process of teaching. In trying to communicate with learners,
teachers often simplify their speech, giving it many of the characteristics of foreigner talk and
other simplified styles of speech addressed to language learners‖ (Richards, 1992: 471).
Having studied the SLA for many years, Rod Ellis (1985) has formulated his own view about
teacher talk: ―Teacher talk is the special language that teachers use when addressing L2
learners in the classroom. There is systematic simplification of the formal properties of the
teacher‘s language… studies of teacher talk can be divided into those that investigate the type
of language that teachers use in language classrooms and those that investigate in the type of
language they use in subject lessons.‖ He also commented ―the language that teachers
address to L2 learner is treated as a register, with its own specific formal and linguistics
properties‖ (Ellis, 1985: 145).
In this research, it is the oral form of teacher talk instead of written form that is under
investigation. It refers to the language that teachers use in language classrooms rather than in
other settings. From the definitions, firstly we can see that teacher talk in English classrooms
is regarded as one special variety of the English language, so it has its own specific features
which other varieties do not share.
Because of the restriction of the physical setting, special participants as well as the goal of
teaching, teacher talk has its own special style. Secondly, we can see that teacher talk is a
special communicative activity. Its goal is to communicate with students and develops
students‘ foreign language proficiency. Teacher talk is used in class when teachers are
conducting instructions, cultivating their intellectual ability and managing classroom
activities (Feng Qican, 1999: 23). Teachers adopt the target language to promote their
communication with learners. In this way, learners practice the language by responding to
what their teacher says. Besides, teachers use the language to encourage the communication
between learners and themselves. Therefore we can say teacher talk is a kind of
communication-based or interaction-based talk.
Capel et.al.(1995) claims that classroom interaction is not only involving verbal interaction
but also non-verbal one. However, this study concerns only on verbal interaction since the
analysis is focused on the teacher‘s verbal production in the classroom interaction. In this
research, the use of teacher talk to conduct instruction, to cultivate students‘ intellectual
ability, and to manage classroom activities emerged obviously in the classroom.
2.1.1.2 Verbal Interaction
Verbal interaction is the focus of the analysis of the study. Verbal Interaction is a two way
process involving mutual exchange of information, ideas, thoughts, and feelings between two
or more people, resulting in a reciprocal effect on each other (Capel et.al, 1995, Brown,
2001). Capel et.al also states that interaction in the classroom happens between students and
teacher and among students themselves as well. Communication among students is also
important, for it can increase or hamper learning in the classroom.
Concerning verbal interaction in the classroom, Capel et.al.(1995, p.80-87) describes a
teacher-directed interaction in the classroom; the teacher‘s role in managing an effective
classroom to create and maintain an atmosphere in which learning can occur. Here are
strategies proposed by Capel et.al.(1995) to create effective teacher-students interaction in
the classroom:
a. Gaining attention, to establish procedures for gaining students‘ attention at the beginning
of the lesson and also when the teacher wants the class to listen again after they have started
an activity.
b. Using voice, to vary the voice in order to use it more effectively, including volume,
projection, pitch, speed, tone, clarity, and expressiveness of the voice.
c. Language of the teacher, to use the language accessibly, understandably, and
constructively.
d. Types of communication, to choose wisely and appropriately type of communication in the
class such as explaining, questioning, and discussion.
The three types of communication commonly occur in the classroom mentioned in point d
above are described explicitly as follows: Explaining It is the most activity spent by teachers
to explain to their students. It can be the main activity in the lesson in some teaching
situations. Effective explaining is an important skill for teachers to obtain, since it determines
the satisfaction of the student towards what they can comprehend from their teacher‘s
explanation. A clear and well-structured explanation is considered as good explanation.
Capel et.al (1995) states that an explanation is considered to be good when: It takes account
of pupils‘ previous knowledge and understanding, uses language that pupils can understand,
relates new work concept, interest or work already familiar to the pupils. …actively engages
pupils in learning and therefore is able to gain and maintain pupils‘ attention. Pupils learn better if
they are actively engaged in in the learning process. (p.83) In relation to Functional Grammar, in
terms of mood system that belongs to interpersonal metafunction, explaining can be
categorized as declarative mood since explaining is a process of giving information (Butt et
al, 2000).
Questioning It is one of techniques used by teachers to involve students actively in their
learning process. Wragg‘s (1984) research cited in Capel (1995) suggests that as much as 30
% of teaching time is in forms of teachers‘ use of questioning. Capel et.al (p. 84) also
describes that asking questions is not an effortless practice; at least there are two purposes of
asking questions, i.e. to get students‘ attention, and to check understanding of an instruction
or explanation. They cited Bloom‘s (1956, in Perrot, 1982) theory of six level of thought
which describes that asking questions is to develop knowledge, comprehension, application,
analysis, synthesis or evaluation.
Functional Grammar categorizes questions as interrogative mood in which there are polar
interrogative that demands yes/no answer and Wh-interrogative or informationseeking
questions (Butt et al, 2000).
Now let‘s take a look deeper at types of question. Much of the work on questions has
centered on developing taxonomies to describe the types (Ellis, 1994). In one of the initial
taxonomies, Barnes (1969; 1976) distinguished four types of questions he observed in
secondary classroom in Britain: (1) Factual questions (‗what?‘), (2) Reasoning questions
(‗how?‘ and ‘why?‘), (3) Open questions that do not require any reasoning, and (4) Social
questions (questions that influence student behavior by means of control or appeal). Later
Barnes made much of distinction between two types of reasoning questions: those that are
closed in that they are enclosed with only one acceptable answer in mind, and those that are
open because they permit a number of different acceptable answers.
Long and Sato (1983) made use of Kearsley‘s (1976) taxonomy of question types based on
conversational data in their study of EFL teachers‘ questions. They,
later, found it necessary to modify the taxonomy that the latter taxonomy includes
18
referential questions that are genuinely seeking information, and display questions
which test the learner by eliciting already known information. The detail taxonomy is
shown in the TABLE 2.1 below:
Type Sub-category Example
1
2
Echoic
Epistemic
a. Comprehension checks
b.Clarification requests
c. Confirmation checks
a. Referential
b.Display
c. Expressive
d.Rhetorical
All right?;OK?; does everyone understand
‗polite‘?
What do you mean?; I don‘t understand;
What?
S: Carefully
T: Carefully?;
Did you say ‗he‘?
Why didn‘t you do your homework?
What‘s the opposite of ‗up‘ in English?
It‘s interesting the different pronunciations we
have now, but isn‘t it?
Why did I do that? Because…
Table 2.1: A taxonomy of the functions of teachers’ questions (from Long and Sato 1983 in Ellis 1994;
based on Kearsley 1976)
This taxonomy centers on the distinction between echoic questions, which ask
for the repetition of an utterance or confirmation that it has been properly understood,
and epistemic questions which serve the purpose of acquiring information. This
distinction is similar but not identical to the open/closed distinction of Barnes.
―Referential questions are likely to be open, while display questions are likely to be
closed, but it is possible to consider of closed referential questions and of open
display questions‖ (Ellis,1994). In addition to display questions and referential
question, Chaudron (1988) and Gebhard (1996) add three more types of questions in
interaction; comprehension checks, confirmation checks, and clarification requests.
Listening
Being attentive; listen to and take account of your students, is an effective
bridge to communicate the message you intend to send to them. ―Being able to listen
19
effectively is as important as being able to send message effectively‖ (Capel et.al,
1995:p.87). Good listening is an active process, with a range of non-verbal and verbal
responses that convey the messages to the person speaking that what is being said is
being listened. These include looking alert, looking at the person who is talking to,
smiling, nodding, and making verbal signals to show whether the message has been
received and understood, or to encourage the person to continue (Capel et.al, 1995).
2.1.1.3 The Role of a Teacher in the Classroom
There are, according to some theories, many terms related to the role of
teacher in the classroom. Facilitator, for example, is often used to describe a
particular kind of teacher, one who is democratic rather than autocratic, and one who
promotes learners autonomy through the use of groupwork and pairwork and by
acting as more of a resource than a transmitter of knowledge (Harmer, 2007). Brown
(2001) and Harmer (2007) categorize roles of a teacher in the classroom into five:
A. The teacher as controller
The teacher is in charge of the class and of the activity taking place and are
often determine what the students do, when they should speak, and what
language forms they should use.
B. The teacher as prompter/director
This is the role that enables teacher to encourage students in a cautious and
supportive way. A directive action that must lead to the ultimate goal, i.e. to
20
allow students eventually to engage in the real-life drama of improvisation as
each communicative event brings its own uniqueness.
C. Teacher as tutor/manager
It is the role that suggests a teacher as one who plan lessons, modules, and
courses, and who arranges the larger, longer segments of classroom time, but
who then allows each individual player to be creative within those limitations.
D. The teacher as facilitator/participant
It is a less directive role that might be illustrated as facilitating the process of
learning, it requires that teacher step away from the managerial or directive
role and allow students to find their own pathways to success.
E. The teacher as resource
This role puts a teacher in a place where he or she is always available for
advice and counsel when the students seek it. But no teacher knows
everything about language, so, what a teacher should be able to offer,
however, is guidance with regard to where students can go to search for that
information. Going further from that, a teacher should encourage students to
use resource material for themselves, and become more independent in their
learning generally (Harmer, 2007:107)(Brown, 2001:167) .
In relation to functional grammar, the teacher‘s roles will be identified in
terms of their utterances used in the classroom. The utterances will be analyzed in the
frame of mood, i.e. speech functions and mood types.
21
What follows is a look at glance to the students‘ side since the focus of this
research is more on the language used by the teacher in the classroom.
2.1.2 The Students
Discussion on the students‘ side is in brief as it has been mentioned above that
the focus of the study is more on the teacher‘s talk in the classroom. Harmer (2007)
describes students or learners in some categories such as: reasons for learning,
different contexts for learning, and learner differences such as age, learning styles,
levels, and motivation. The categories investigated in this study are merely on
students‘ response to the teacher‘s instruction in the EFL classroom. Following
section is the discussion about theories and research on classroom interaction.
2.2 Classroom Interaction Research
EFL classrooms of secondary and high school in Indonesia are lack of
research, while the majority of teachers of English devote themselves to the teaching
routine, but seldom reflect the issues underlying teaching methods, multi-dimensions
of learners‘ learning and teachers‘ teaching behavior. Nor do they find ways to solve
problems and eventually bring about changes to improve their practice. In addition,
teachers of English may also feel less than confident with the notion of ―research‖ as
they may believe they lack the training to carry out classroom-centered research
(CCR) as suggested by Allwright and Bailey (1991).
22
According to Allwright and Bailey (1991), CCR concentrates on classroom
interaction—what goes on between and among teachers and students—in order to
gain insights and increase our understanding of classroom learning and teaching.
Examples include how teachers ask questions and correct errors, what effect the type
of task might have on learning, and whether reading aloud or silent reading in class
results in more learning.
CCR draws its research methodologies from a variety of social sciences—
anthropology, interaction analysis—as well as from domains related to linguistics
such as discourse analysis, which is the focus of this study, and ethnography of
communication. And it is worth to emphasize again that this study focuses on
discourse analysis. It is unusual to have carefully controlled experiments such as
those one finds in psychology. As the main focus of CCR is on classroom interaction,
the research seeks data in the form of both verbal and non-verbal behaviors for
analysis to describe, explain and predict the role of formal classroom instruction in
language learning.
Regarding data collection in classroom interaction research, Chaudron (1988)
outlines four research traditions in CCR: psychometric, tradition, which is the most
quantitative, involving statistical analysis of numerical data. The other three
approaches are more likely to be within the qualitative paradigm, yet include the
counting of numbers of times the teacher talks, for example, thus providing a
quantitative dimension. A solid ethnography of a classroom may be more appropriate
to capture, for example, how learners work in groups to improve their language
23
competence; this is an example of the kind of research, which can be done by teachers
of English. In relation to this study, discourse analysis is the appropriate research
chosen, since the study merely analyzes linguistic categories of classroom discourse
in form of studying classroom transcript and assign utterances into predetermined
categories.
TABLE 2.2 A comparison between different research traditions (after Chaudron 1988, in Nunan 1989,
p.5)
Tradition Typical issues Methods
Psychometric
Interaction analysis
Discourse analysis
Ethnographic
Language gain from different
methods, materials and methods.
Extent to which learner behavior is
a function of teacher-determined
interaction.
Analysis of classroom discourse in
linguistic terms.
Obtain insights into the classroom
as a ‗cultural‘ system.
Experimental method –pre- and
post-test with experimental and
control groups.
Coding classroom interactions
in terms of various observation
systems and schedules.
Study classroom transcripts and
assign utterances to
predetermined categories.
Naturalistic ‗uncontrolled‘
observation and description.
A common theme underlying different methods of language teaching is that
second language learning is a highly interactive process (Richards & Lockhart,
2000:138). In recent years, a great deal of researches (Allwright, 1984; Ellis 1990;) in
the field of L2 acquisition reveals to a great extent the importance of classroom
interaction that involves both input and output. The Interaction Hypothesis claims that
it is in the interaction process that acquisition occurs: learners acquire through talking
with others (Johnson, 2002: 95). According to Allwright and Ellis, classroom
teaching should be treated as interaction. Now it is clear that the language used in
24
classroom affects the nature of the interaction, which in turn affects the opportunities
available for learning, the study of interaction is therefore critical to the study of
language classroom learning.
Van Lier (1989) points out: if the keys to learning are exposure to input and
meaningful interaction with other speakers, we must find out what input and
interaction the classroom can provide… we must study in detail the use of language
in the classroom in order to see if and how learning comes about through the different
ways of interaction in the classroom. He also pointed out that interaction is essential
for language learning which occurs in and through participation in speech events,
which is, talking to others, or making conversation (Van Lier, 1989:77-78).
Ellis (1985) points out: classroom instruction, both in the form of meaningful
interaction, and in the form of linguistic rules, may influence the rate of acquisition.
Teachers can influence the kind of interaction that occurs in their own classrooms.
Successful outcomes may depend on the type of language used by the teacher and the
type of interactions occurring in the classroom. Fillmore (Ellis, 1985:160) is one of
the researchers to have investigated how classroom interaction affects the rate of
SLA. Fillmore compared the progress of the sixty L2 learners in different classrooms.
She found that neither the difference in classroom composition (mixed Englishspeaking
and no-English speaking only) nor the difference in the type of teaching
offered (‗open‘ or ‗teacher-directed‘) influences the success of language learning
when considered separately. The availability of facilitative discourse types is not
entirely dependent on the type of classroom organization adopted by the teacher.
25
Pupils will learn most successfully when they are given ample opportunities to
interact in conversation. So in this sense, we can say how a lesson progresses and
whether it is successful largely depend on the interaction between the students and the
teacher.
Classroom interaction is mainly realized by IRF (teachers‘ initiate-students‘
respond-teachers‘ feedback) structure. In this model, teachers often initiate interaction
by asking questions. Teachers‘ questions not only can create more interaction
activities, but can prompt students to participate in all kinds of negotiation of
meaning. Negotiation makes input comprehensible and promotes SLA. The result of
the negotiation of meaning is that particular types of input and interaction result
(Ellis, 1985:142). Teachers carry out all his teaching tasks by teacher‘s talk, an
understanding of the aspects of teacher‘s talk and their functions in the classroom
interaction is, therefore, very important. As the framework analysis of the study,
Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) and Functional Grammar (FG) are discussed in
the following sections.
2.3 Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)
Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is a school of linguistics which has
been developed and influenced by previous linguists. SFL has been influenced by
Malinowsky, Firth, and Hymes especially in terms of the concept of context of
culture (Halliday & Hassan, 1985; see also in Emilia, 2005b). Then, Halliday (1994,
p. xiii-xiv) with his systemic functional linguistics argued that there are concepts of
26
functional linguistics which are interrelated, i.e., (1) text,(2) system, and (3) linguistic
structure (Halliday, 1994; Halliday, 2003). Firstly, he describes how language is used
to get the people need. Text is built in context of language based on language system.
Secondly, all languages are structured to deliver three kinds of meaning, i.e.,
ideational, interpersonal and textual meanings. Thirdly, each unit of language is
realized by systems that referring to the linguistics system. All units of language—for
example clauses, phrases and others—are the configuration of functional organic.
SFL has had an impact on educational studies throughout the world (Connor,
1996 in Emilia, 2005b; Painter, 2000) and its most obvious impact has been on
discourse analysis where ―it is therefore of interest to language teachers because they
too long have had the question of how people use language uppermost in minds when
they design teaching materials or when they engage learners in exercises and
activities‖ (McCharty, 2990, p.1; Eggins, 2000).
Applications of SFL on research include textual analysis related to psychology
(Bower and Cirilo, 1985; Robinson, 1985); social dimension of discourse (Duranti,
1985); and philosophy of language (Kasher, 1985). Particularly in Indonesia, this kind
of discourse analysis based on mood type analysis has not been developed intensively
(Christie &Unsworth, 2000; Fairclough, 2003). However, there are some research
studies that have been done in this field. For example, Silaban (1985) investigated the
comprehension of teaching reading through discourse analysis; Alamandra (2004)
analyzed generic structure and lexico-grammatical characteristic of application letters
under discourse analysis system. This indicates that there are widespread efforts to
27
analyze language from several educational perspectives. This indication provides the
use of SFL ―for analyzing spoken and written language for people in social sciences
and the humanities with little or no background in language studies‖, is more needed,
and ―be well established parts of the field‖ (Fairclough, 2003, p.1).
Eggins (1994) states that Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) an approach
which has helped linguists to analyze and explain ―how meanings are made in
everyday linguistic interactions‖ (Eggins, 1994, p. 1). This approach has increasingly
been recognized due to it provides ―a very useful theoretical and analytical
framework for exploring and explaining how texts mean‖ (p. 07). provides a model of
language as a functional semantic resource, that is, a model that emphasizes the social
functions of language and describes grammar in terms of hierarchically organized
structures and in terms of systems of mutually exclusive choices available to the language
user under specified conditions. Moreover, the systems and the sequence of choices
create a text in which the choices themselves are ―the realization of contextual
dimensions which include ―the configurations of field, tenor (register) and mode, cultural
conventions (genre) and ideological positions‖ (ibid.). Thus, language is not only ―a
resource embedded in a social and cultural context‖, but also a resource ―through which
humans are continually constructing, maintaining and defining what constitute
appropriate meanings in our culture‖ (Eggins, 1994, p. 307).
Thus, according to Halliday (1975, cited in Ravelli 1999, p. 5), learning
language is ―learning how to mean‖. If a speaker learns that different forms contain
the same meaning that may be used meaningfully in the text, then he has to
28
understand fully the resources of the linguistic system in order to make meanings. In
relation to the meaning-making process, Halliday (in Eggins, 1994, p.3) argues that
language is structured to make three kinds of meaning, i.e., ideational, interpersonal,
and textual meanings simultaneously.
Since SFL is also concerned with language in education, the concepts of SFL
deal not only with language itself, but also with language learning. In connection to
the concept that SFL is concerned with language in education, the basic concept of
SFL is discussed below.
2.4 Basic Principles of Systemic Functional Theory
As cited in Emilia (2005b; see also Lipson, 2004), Halliday states that the first
principle is that language is a social semiotic. Further, Halliday (1985, 1989; 4-5,
cited in Lipson, Halliday, 2003) explains the meaning of ―social‖ in the term social
semiotic:
Social in the sense of the social system, which I take to be synonymous with the
culture, so when I say ‗social semiotic‘ I am referring to the definition of a social
system, or a culture, as a system of meanings. But I also intend a more specific
interpretation of the world ‗social‘ to indicate that we are concerned particularly with
the relationship between language and social structure, considering the social
structure as one aspect of the social system (Lipson, 2004, p.6)
Saussures‘s theory of semiotics as described by Kristeva (1989, p.296 in
Emilia, 2005b) refers to ―the study of all verbal and non-verbal systems as language,
that is, as systems in which signs are articulated by a syntax of difference‖. Similarly,
according to Lemke (1995, p.9 in Emilia, 2005b), in SFL, the term semiotic is also
29
often used to refer to ―the general study of meaning-making (semiotics), including not
just the meanings we make with language, but meanings we make with every sort of
object, event or action insofar as it is endowed with a significance, a symbolic value
in community‖ (Halliday, 2003; see also Ravelli, 2000).
The second principle is that SFL theorists see language as resource for making
meanings rather than a system of rules. Under this principle, SFL, sees meanings as
choices, which are not conscious decisions made in real time, but a set of alternatives.
Regarding this concepts, cristie and Unsworth (2000, p.2) argue:
SFL describes language in terms of a set of choices of meaning, a set of options, such
as singular/plural, simple past, present, future tense, positive/negative polarity is
called a system, and hence the name is system. When language is described in this
way, every choice embodied in an utterance or text carries in terms the potential
choices, not made (p.48)
The third principle, which has a great impact on language study, is that SFL
concerns text rather than sentences. SFL theory proposes that the object of language
study should involve a whole text (meaningful passage of language), not a
decontextualized sentence or utterance (Eggins, 1994).
Finally, SFL concerns language as a system for construing meaning. Rather
than as a conduit through which thoughts and feeling are poured. SFL views language
as ―a meaning-making system rather than a meaning-expressing one‖ (Halliday and
Martin, 1993, p. 23; Paltridge, 2000; Halliday, 2003). Under this principle, unlike
other linguistic theories, SFL does not hold ―a binary theory of language which
involves dichotomies (Christie, 2005; Bloor & Bloor, 1995), such as performance and
30
competence by Chomsky, language and Parole by Saussure, form and content
(Emilia, 2005b, p.59).
All points of SFL have been summarized by Eggins, she notes:
…common to all systemic linguists is an interest in how people use language with
each other in accomplishing everyday social claims about language: that language use
is functional; that these meanings are influenced by the social and cultural context in
which they are exchanged and that the process of using language is a semiotic
process, a process of making meaning by choosing (1994, p.2)
The discussion now is continued to deal with systemic functional grammar
theory, as part of SFL, in which involves the last theory which has given shape to this
study that is the concept of speech role or communicative functions. It is discussed in
section 2.5 below.
2.5 Functional Grammar
Functional grammar, as part of SFL, has its goal the complete description and
explanation of the meaning-making capabilities of language (Gerot & Wignell, 1994).
It means that functional grammar is a tool that can explore various dimensions of
meaning. To do this, grammarians look at texts—―instances of language, in any
medium, that make sense to someone who knows the language‖ (p. 3)—and ask
questions about why it means what it does, why it is valued as it is, and what it
reveals about the broader system of language. Texts in this perspective have
properties that are reminiscent of the magical property Gee ascribed to language;
namely, text only means what it does because of its relation to an overarching
31
linguistic system and simultaneously the linguistic system is constructed by various
individual texts.
The functional grammar program is incredibly expansive and detailed,
addressing all levels of text (e.g., sentences, phrases, words, phonemes) and
incorporating specific tools of linguistics. It is beyond both the scope of this paper
and my personal capabilities to address the entire breadth and depth of functional
grammar. Instead, I will focus on a few of its conceptual frames that I believe will be
useful in my future work, beginning with a brief overview of the metafunctions of
language.
In functional grammar, all instances of language serve the purpose of making
sense of our experience—the ideational metafunction and also of acting out our social
relationships—the interpersonal metafunction (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2003a).
There is also a textual metafunction which refers to aspects of the organization of
language itself. The interpersonal metafunction is the focus used to realize
interpersonal meaning to uncover type of interaction taking place and kind of
commodity being exchanged (Butt et al, 2000) in the classroom interaction. For
example, a piece of text from a mathematics classroom interaction that features
students talking about a geometric pattern contains language used for the purpose of
making sense of the mathematical activity and simultaneously contains language that
positions the students relative to each other and to the mathematics (e.g., as capable
learners). Analysts at a given point in time may focus more on the ideational or the
32
interpersonal aspects of the discourse, but functional grammar reminds us that the
other is never absent.
The following conceptual frames provide tools with which to uncover the
ways in which the above metafunctions of language are enacted.
Processes, Mood, and Modality
Experiences are perceived as a flow or continuous series of events, and
functional grammar identifies different types of processes that language systems
employ to organize and make sense of these experiences (Halliday & Matthiessen,
2003c). A distinction that is made even among infants is that of mental (or inner)
versus material (or outer) experiences. The former includes processes such as feeling
and thinking, whereas the latter includes processes such as happening and doing.
There are also relational (e.g., classifying, having attributes), existential (e.g.,
existing), behavioral (e.g., seeing), and verbal (e.g., saying) processes, though the
lines of separation are not always clear (e.g., thinking has elements of mental and
verbal experience). These categories of processes, and the associated detail about how
words construe them, are useful when analyzing discourse.
Mood in functional grammar refers to whether a clause is indicative or
imperative (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2003b). The types of moods contain further
subtypes as follows:
33
Indicative (i.e., exchanging information)
Declarative (i.e., making a statement)
ı Affirmative
ı Exclamative
Interrogative (i.e., asking a question)
ı Yes/No
ı Wh- questions
Imperative (i.e., exchanging goods and services)
Mood in English is pointed out by the position in the clause of the Subject
Finite. Eggins (2000: 156-157) accentuates the definition of subject in the thing by
reference to which the proposition can be affirmed or denied, while finite is another
mood element which makes the proposition definite, to anchor the proposition in a
way that we can argue about it. Since this study utilizes analysis of Mood types, it is
worth to know that how these two elements ‗move around‘ depends on sorts of mood
as shown in the following brief scheme of mood types in figure 2.1 below.
Declarative negative
Indicative polar
Positive
Interrogative
Mood Wh-
Imperative
Figure 2.1 Mood types (adapted from Gerot and Wignell; 1994, p.38)
34
2.5.1 The Concept of Communicative/speech Functions in Mood Type Theory
The organization of the mood system and the realizations of various options
may differ from one language to another. Language, of course, does far more than
just represent content, so, every act of ―communicative functions‖ (McCarthy, 1990:
p.6) referred here, is the same as ―the speech functions‖ proposed by Halliday
(Eggins, 1994: p.150; Martin, 1992)—the semantic categories that are giving
information (statements), demanding information (questions), offers, and demanding
and services and goods (commands) very likely enacted in the grammar of all
languages (Halliday & Mathiessen, 1997; Ravelli, 2000).
Related to this theory, Gerot and Wignel (1994) states that ―in our society,
very often the more powerful person in the interaction has the right to question, to
state, to ask, whereas the less powerful person answers‖, or has to be accorded the
right to ask by the more powerful person. This is even more obvious when it comes to
command.
See the figure 2.2 below:
35
Figure 2.2 The Semantic System of Speech Functions
Open A
Initiate Initiation
Type
Response request B
Move
Expected C
Respond Responding
Type
Discretionary D
Give M
Move Initiating
(in exchange) Role
Demand N
Goods Statement C
& services X
Responding
Commodity Type
Information Y Question D
(Quoted from Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 108)
36
Based on the figure above, it can be said that every starting move of a
dialogue must be one or another of these speech functions and each speech function
involves both a speech role and responding choice.
The speech roles are giving and demanding (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004).
Even these elementary categories already involve complex notions; giving means
‗inviting to receive‘ and demanding means ‗inviting to give‘. The speaker is not only
something himself, he is also requiring something of the listener. Typically therefore,
an act of speaking is something that might more appropriately be called an interact: it
is an exchange, in which giving implies receiving and demanding implies giving in
response (Halliday, 1994; Halliday & Matthiessen, 1997,2004).
Fairclough (2003) stated that at the same time as choosing either to give or
demand in an exchange, the speakers also choose the kind of commodity that they
will exchange. The choice is between exchanging information or exchanging goods
and services. Those who exchange information may make one of two possible moves:
statement or question. Those who exchange goods or services may choose two other
possible moves: offer or command (Painter, 2000).
Furthermore, Fairclough (2003) and Halliday (2004) state that offer will
include promising, threatening, apologizing, and thanking. Meanwhile, demanding
will include ordering, requesting, begging and so forth (p. 108). For example, if we
say something to someone with the aim of getting him to do something for us, or to
give us some object, the exchanged commodity is strictly non-verbal. What is being
demanded is an object or an action. But if we say something to someone with the aim
37
of getting him to tell us something, what is being demanded is information.
―Language is brought in to help the process along, and language also is the end as
well as the means, and the only answer expected is a verbal one‖ (Halliday &
Matthiessen, 2004: 107).
The former example is an exchange of goods and services, and the later is an
exchange of information. It means that exchanging information is more complicated
than exchanging goods and services, because in the former the listener is asked not
merely to listen and to do something but also to act out a verbal role that is to affirm
or to deny, or to supply a missing piece of information. These two variables, when
taken together into these four moves—―statement, question, offer, and command‖—
are what Halliday refers to as speech functions (Martin, 1992; Eggins, 1994;
Fairclough, 2003; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 108). The summary is as in the table
below.
Table 2.3 Giving or Demanding, Goods and Services or Information and
Services
Initiations Response
Expected Discretionary
Give Goods
&
services
Offer Acceptance Rejection
Demand Command Undertaking Refusal
Give
Information
Statement Acknowledgement Contradiction
Demand Question Answer Disclaimer
(Quoted from Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 108)
38
Fairclough (2003) proposed that in terms of speech function, the clearly
declarative sentences are statement and the clearly interrogative sentences are
question. But sometimes, there are declarative sentences, but with question ‘tagged
onto‘ the end of the sentences, what are usually known as ‗tagged-questions‘ that is to
ensure the answer of the question and therefore as a statement. What this suggests is
that the sentences are ―both statements and questions, providing information and at
the same time asking for confirmation‖ (p.117). specifically, declarative sentences are
functioning to give information. It also makes use of imperatives to realize commands
at selected points in the text (Ravelli, 2000).
Then, it is important to recognize that after one speaker has initiated an
exchange, another speaker is very likely to respond. Thus, it should be clear that there
is a choice between initiating and responding. There are two kinds of possible
responses: support and confrontation. Of these, only the last is essentially a verbal
response, the other can all be non verbal. But in real life situations, all four responses
are verbalized, with or without some accompanying non verbal actions (Eggins,
1994).
Based on the eight speech functions above, we then relate them to the meaning
of the clause produced in the interaction. In other words, different speech function
classes can be recognized in a relation between the semantic choices of speech
function and the grammatical structure which is typically chosen to encode it. This
correlation is summarized in the table 2.4 and 2.5 below:
39
Table 2.4 Typical Realization and Respond (Elliptical Clause) in Grammar of
Speech Functions
Initiate:
Full clause
Respond:
Elliptical clause
AMX (I‘ll…/shall I…?) CMX (yes; do)
BMX (I‘ll…, shall I?) DMX (no; don‘t)
AMY Declarative CMY (Oh; is it?)
BMY Declarative + mood tag DMY (no it isn‘t)
ANX Imperative CNX (yes; I will)
BNX Imperative + mood tag DNX (no I won‘t)
ANYP Interrogative : yes/no CNYP (yes/no)
DNYP (Don‘t know/won‘t say)
ANYQ Interrogative: Wh- CNYQ Group/phrase
DNYQ (don‘t know/won‘t say)
(Quoted from Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004: 109)
In moving into the role of speaker, the listener has considerable confrontation.
Not only can he give any one of a wide range of different responses to a question by
giving an answer whether the answer would be on answering as action or the answer
as information (Fairclough, 2003), but also carry out a command in different ways; he
may refuse to answer the question altogether, or to provide the goods and services
demanded.
Then, the speaker on his part can add a tag, which is a reminder of what is
expected, as the function of the tag at the end of the clause (Halliday & Matthiessen,
2004). It serves to signal explicitly that a response is required, and what kind of
response it is expected to be (Eggins, 1994).
40
Dealing with typical mood clause pairs of speech functions, different table
also proposed by Eggins (1994) below:
Table 2.5 Speech Function and Typical Mood of Clause
Speech Function Typical Mood of Clause
Statement
Question
Command
Offer
Answer
Acknowledgement
Acceptance
compliance
Declarative mood
Interrogative mood
Imperative mood
Modulated imperative
Elliptical declarative
Elliptical declarative
Minor clause
Minor clause
(Quoted from Eggins, 1994, p. 153)
The tables above have shown the relation of the semantic choice of speech
functions and the grammatical structure or typical mood of the clause. Eggins (1994)
stated that mood structure of the clause refers to the organization of a set of functional
constituents including the constituent subject. For example, if we wish to make
statement, we would typically use a declarative clause, refers to the implication that
the text giving factual sense of events or statements that took place (Paltridge, 2000).
While to make a command we would use an imperative clause; to offer something
we would use a ―would…like‖ interrogative (modulated interrogative) that the
proposition in the clause is debatable and arguable (Ravelli, 2000), and to ask a
question, we would of course use an interrogative clause.
Other relevant analysis, dealing with the verbless utterances like ―yeah‖ should be
regarded as minor clause lacking any grammatical clause structure or as an
41
abbreviated ―elliptical‖ sentence in responding speech. Painter (2000) proposed the
arguments that an elliptical structure allows the hearer to fill in some wording that has
just previously been uttered. But there may be cases where there is no responding
wording, but some part of the grammatical structure can still be filled in from the
immediate context of situation.
On the other hand, Dealing with the incongruent mood realization, Eggins
(1994) explained that there are other possibilities for realization of the specifics
speech functions of the mood structures. Not all demands for goods and services have
to be imperatives. We need to consider the possibilities for both marked and
unmarked correlations. The choice between marked or unmarked structure will be
influenced by contextual demands (the register, and specifically, the tenor
relationship). Thus, for example, commands are typically expressed with imperative
clauses; they can also be expressed with declaratives or modulated interrogatives
(Ravelli, 2000; Cloran, 2000), such strategies are often used to engage reader‘s and
speaker‘s attention, where the direct request for information encourages their direct
engagement. While offers are typically expressed by modulated interrogatives, they
can also be expressed by imperatives or declaratives. While questions are usually
expressed by interrogatives, they can be also expressed by modulated declaratives or
only declarative (Cloran, 2000). And while statements are usually expressed by
declaratives they can also be expressed by tagged declaratives.
In terms of the expressing the utterances by using modality (modulated
declaratives and modulated interrogatives), the speaker and the listener can indicate
42
the strength of their opinion. Through the use of modality, it is indicated whether the
speaker is presenting a straight fact or something which is opinionated; whether a
straight-forward act is intended, or whether the act is attached to obligation, and so on
(Ravelli, 2000).
For instance Halliday & Matthiessen (1997) state that the degree to which
there is a distinct grammatical category corresponding to commands is variable: there
may or may not be a distinct form of the imperative, and even where there is, there
are usually many ather possible realizations. Similarly, while all languages probably
have a basic opposition between statement and yes-no questions (polarity questions),
which it is often (though not universally) possible to express by means of the
distinction between falling and rising intonation, questions demanding a specific
element of information (other than the value of the polarity) may be grouped
systematically either with statements or with yes-no questions. Sometimes, they are
like statements in that their polarity is certain, but at the same time they are like yesno
questions in that they demand information. Furthermore, languages differ
considerably with respect to more delicate options, such as those concerned with how
interactants position one another in dialogue (e.g. by indicating expected responses)
and with how they assess the information being exchanged (e.g. by indicating degree
of probability or source of evidence).
43
2.6 An Example of Functional Grammar in Education Research
Christie (2002) used functional grammar to ―look at how language users
exploit and deploy the language choices to make meanings‖ (p. 13) within
classrooms. As was alluded to above, Christie found that this theoretical framework
illuminated various aspects of the classroom discourse and gave her a language with
which to discuss the meaning-making that was occurring. For example, Christie
identified different process types and where they were deployed in a text ―to make
judgments about the kinds of experiential meanings in construction‖ (p. 14). For
example, ―You should consider this‖ (p. 13) displays a mental process of cognition,
whereas ―You‘ve got to follow the instructions‖ displays a material process. These
examples are also useful in that they exemplify the first of two classroom registers (or
sets of language choices) that Christie found in classroom texts. This first register,
termed the regulative register, has to do with communication about behaviors in the
classroom. The second register, termed the instructional register, has to do with the
content being taught and learned (p. 14-15). Examples of utterances within the
instructional register would be ―let‘s look at the mammal room‖ and ―you‘ll be
making an exact replica of a catapult.‖ Of course, the two registers are not separate
(as we can see by the regulative nature of the process types in the examples from the
instructional register, wherein students are directed to look and informed that they
will be making something). In fact, nearly every piece of text lives in both registers,
but to varying degrees.
44
Within the interpersonal metafunction, Christie noted the role of mood in that
teachers can offer information (―Today we‘ve got another simply story which is
called ‗My Lunch‘‖) or they can demand it (―What‘s a barrel?‖). Modality also comes
into play as the teacher may strongly indicate something‘s importance (―We‘ve got to
do a lot of concentrating‖) or may try to guide behavior more subtly (―Now a lot of
work may be with a partner, so you‘re probably best to sit next to somebody‖). Over
the course of a text and subsequently over the course of multiple texts within a
classroom, language use of this sort establishes the ―relative roles and
responsibilities‖ (p. 16) of teacher and students.
Also within the domain of the interpersonal metafunction, an analysis of
pronoun use can shed light on the relationships between teacher and students, as
Christie found when she noted that teachers often use first person plural forms (e.g.,
―we‖) to build solidarity at the onset of an educational task and second person (e.g.,
―you‖) when explicitly directing student behavior. In this way, the discourse analysis
informs us of ways in which teachers build communities of learners while also
maintaining their role as the leader of the classroom.
2.7 Concluding Remark
This chapter has reviewed the literature that informs the approach to investigate
classroom interaction. It began by acknowledging theories of classroom interaction in
which it covers explanation about the two parties involved i.e. the teacher and he
students, and their roles in the classroom interaction. Classroom interaction is central
45
to the learning process and an analysis of it affords particular insights into how
teachers, EFL teachers, approach and construct the classroom teaching of English.
This chapter also highlighted the research traditions commonly used to
investigate classroom interaction. It started with reasons of how classroom centered
research emerged for the purpose of gaining reflection for teachers to identify issues
in their teaching routines.
Discourse analysis, as the method of this study, is reviewed altogether with
systemic functional grammar (SFG), as the tool for analyzing the discourse, to give
more focus of the study. An example of the use of functional grammar in educational
research, by Christie, comes to end the chapter.