Language Activities Based on the Systemic Functional Model - Research Paper Example

Language Activities Based on the Systemic Functional Model The conceptualisation of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) by Michael Halliday in the 1960s has undoubtedly transformed the way language is taught in today’s classrooms. This model exemplifies the principles of earlier language teaching approaches such as Audiolingualism and Communicative Approach and even exceeds them with a more functional and comprehensive view of grammar. SFL considers the difference between spoken and written language, thus functionality is emphasised more than structure (O’Donnell, 2011). Today, systemic functionalists progress with a more non-restrictive approach to teaching spoken English, allowing students especially in non-native classes to learn the language with greater ease and more chances of making meaning. Applying the idea of SFL, this paper analyses two activities for English language teaching in the intermediate level. The activities were taken from Billbrough’s (2007; pp.54, 157) book titled, Dialogue Activities. The two activities are recommended for pre-intermediate and higher levels. According to Billbrough, dialogues are ideal to promote the speaking skills of the students. Based on this recommendation to incorporate authentic dialogues, it can be assumed that the book adheres to Halliday’s SFL principles. Analyses of the activities in the book could give light to the issue. From the time of its formal introduction up to now, SFL has received impressive attention from grammarians. Thus, scholars and researchers have made further enquiry and elucidations to expound on the ideas of Halliday. In order to achieve focus, this paper analyses the activities based on some main principles that Halliday (Halliday & Webster, 2003) introduced as follows: 1. Spoken language is different from written language. 2. Language is a semiotic system. 3. Language is a system of probability. Although there are at least nine principles according to Halliday (Halliday & Webster, 2003), the three principles above will be given focus in analysing the two classroom activities. Activity 1: The words I’d like to own The first activity is called The Words I’d like to Own. In this activity, the aim is for students to learn new vocabulary words/phrases/terms/statement from a transcript and make the language part of their active vocabulary. The students will read a transcript and pick from it some words or phrases that they like to imitate and form part of their own vocabulary. After choosing, they will discuss with their group and decide on two phrases or words to use in a dialogue. The group will present the dialogue to the class and the audience will identify the target language/term/phrase/statement the group incorporated into their speech. Analysis The suggested dialogue activity is a good attempt to adopt the SFL Model. The beginning of the activity illustrates the main principle of SFL to teach students of the difference between spoken and written language. As systemic functionalists argue, ‘spoken grammars have uniquely special qualities that distinguish them from written ones’ (McCarthy and Carter, 2001:51). This means that the language we use in speaking is different from the one we use in writing. Written language is more strict and formal; it is produced with a consciousness of the rules. In contrast, spoken language is freer, open and spontaneous. Therefore, in teaching English, teachers should not only give more leeway when assessing spoken English but make students aware of the difference between the two. In the given activity, Billbrough (2007: 53-54) shows the attempt to make students realise the said difference. First, he recommends the use of a dialogue transcript instead of a written text from a resource book such as an encyclopaedia or a magazine. Doing this would detract the SFL model because written texts have use different grammar from dialogue transcripts. Second, the activity adheres to the SFL idea that ‘language is a semiotic system’ (Halliday & Webster, 2003: 2). By this, Halliday means ‘language is a system of meaning’ (p.2). Making meaning is therefore considered more important than following correct grammar structure. With stress on meaning, the main goal of the teacher should be the promotion of ‘making meaning through choice’ (Halliday, 1978; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004), and not the production of correct language in speech activities. Systemic functionalists claim that function is more important than structure because a considerable research corpus (Halliday & Webster, 2003: 24; Carter and McCarthy 1995; 1997) has found that native speakers understood each other even without following strict grammar structures. In fact, a number of expressions or discourse markers have been found to have helped communicators understand each other. Although structure or correct grammar is also part of the semiotic system that promotes understanding, function takes precedence, making imperfect language admissible if only to arrive at a common thought between or amongst speakers. The first activity reflects the concern on making meaning as students group together to discuss what vocabulary/phrase/language they want to adopt in their dialogue. Discussing together as a group promotes the communicativeness of students, hence the exchange of meaning. The semiotic system works in this regard in three ways, calling to mind the three metafunctions of language according to Halliday, namely, ‘ideational, interpersonal, and textual’ (Halliday, 1978: 112). The ideational metafunction comes with the choosing of the new vocabularies. As students discuss their ideas about the new vocabularies to be used in the dialogue, they express their own thoughts on how the terms should be used. For instance, they may cite situations they could use the terms for, activate prior knowledge to recall encountering such terms in the past, and suggest possible ways on how to incorporate it in a dialogue. As for the interpersonal metafunction, students are grouped to cooperate with each other to come up with a dialogue. In the making of the dialogue, students do not just relate their ideas but likewise their experiences, which hail from their own unique social contexts. SFL gives importance to context as the making of meaning relies heavily on the background of the speakers, the situation they are in. The way they would interpret a scenario, information or sign depends on their social context or background. In the activity, students contribute their ideas in making the dialogue, sharing with others the social context of their knowledge and the depth of their experience. The textual metafunction is revealed as students compose the dialogue. Although it may not be advisable to construct a written dialogue as such could decompose the authenticity of spoken language, the textual metafunction is served as students apply their knowledge of structure based on how dialogue statements should appear in the conversation. The group discussion and the dialogue are both instances of making meaning, hence are ways to activate the semiotic system in each student. Considering these, the activity aligns closely with the SFL Model. The third question is whether the activity illustrates the principle that language is a system of probability. In his writing, Halliday (Halliday & Webster, 2003: 23) emphasises the ‘systemic probabilities of the language’. According to him, ‘language is a vast, open-ended system of meaning potential, constantly renewing itself in interaction with its ecosocial environment’(25). In the activity, the application of the terms in a dialogue somehow illustrates the probability of the language as it allows students to choose statements that adhere together to make up a dialogue. However, deciding on what to say in the presentation, memorising lines and relying on written text deviates from the principle of making choices and meaning and differentiating spoken from written language. As Carter and McCarthy (2006: 5) posit, ‘spoken language foregrounds choices which reflect the immediate social and interpersonal situation’. Responding spontaneously, students will rely on their systemic functional and acquired language, not on pedagogical or school language. However, if they write the speech before presenting, authenticity will be lost and although the choices will illustrate the social context they represent, those will not be immediate to challenge the minds and bring out authentic spoken language. For spoken language to be probabilistic, it has to be authentic and unplanned, therefore students should neither memorise their lines nor write a script for presentation. Rather, they should converse verbally with others with only the meaning and context in their mind. This is not to recommend that students should speak impromptu. They can be given time to prepare for the dialogue but they should likewise be advised not to memorise their scripts so that choice and probability are still present. Rationale Overall, the activity adheres to the SFL Model as it separates spoken language from written one and it provides speaking exercise in accordance with the semiotic system, which involves the metafunctions of language. However, there is a possibility to fail exploring the probability that spoken language has, according to Halliday by assigning students to present a prepared dialogue. To explore the probability of language use, it is recommended to ask students to present the dialogue without written scripts. Doing this will open the possibility of making more meaning than intended, that is, when students commit mistakes and forget their script then struggle to make meaning using their own register. Moreover, the teacher could also ask students to choose the new vocabulary then let them explain what it means to them, how the term can be used, etc. Students can engage in discussion with other students in small groups regarding instances they heard the language used and situations or contexts in which the new language can be applied. Students may prepare an outline of those situations or contexts then report to class what they found out using authentic speech. This way, students are given more chances to converse and make meaning, which they will not experience when they present a memorised speech. In the suggested activity, the discussion part may be seen as the most important part because it is the time when students will really rely on their own language register to make meaning. Therefore, the teacher should make this part longer, if the decision to memorise the speech will be retained. In particular, the group discussion enhances the ideational and interpersonal skills of the students. As they exchange views and experiences regarding the new term to be adopted, they create more probabilities of language, which could all the more help improve not only their language register but also their social skills, in accordance with Vygotsky’s (1986) theory of social development. Establishing the fusion between Halliday’s and Vygotsky’s view, we may say that cooperative learning groups are ideal as they make exchange of meaning and culture richer. Activity 2: Filling in The second activity is called ‘Filling In’ (Billbrough, 2007: 54). This one is recommended for intermediate and higher year levels. As the name suggests, this activity requires students to fill in a dialogue with missing parts. The missing parts are all discourse markers or as systemic functionalists call them, headers and tails. These phrases help speakers convey meaning more easily. Examples include ‘you know,’ ‘anyway,’ ‘whatever,’ etc. In the dialogue below, a number of headers and tails were used as underlined: A: You know, I think we should buy it. It’s just what we want, isn’t it? B: It’s a lot of money, though. A: Well, I know, but I think we can afford it. B: OK then, If you’re sure. A: I’ll give them a ring, then. B: Anyway, I’ve got to go now. Can you ring them from work? I’ll talk to you later. The teacher will take out all headers and tails in the copy of the dialogue to be provided to the students. Then, she will also give a separate list of all headers and tails so that students can decide what is missing in the lines of the dialogue. Afterwards, they will discuss the function of each phrase in the sentence. Analysis The second activity focuses on the use of headers and tails. These phrases are very common in everyday native language and even in traditional classrooms but we can barely find lesson plans or activities in traditional pedagogical English curriculum touching on this topic. Usually, they are called discourse markers or common expressions, and are not contained in textbook dialogues or speeches. For instance, in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116, he writes: ‘Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom. If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved.’ Shakespeare (n.d.) The term ‘anyway’ could be used as a header to introduce the couplet but the informality of the expression disallows the use of the term. Teaching students about the function of headers and tails in the dialogue is a clear indication that the activity aligns with SFL in its principle to differentiate between spoken and written language. It is a given knowledge that students use the same headers and tails as given in the example but seeing them tackled in an English class confirms the acceptance of this language register in the English language. Consequently, discussing about these discourse markers affirms that such phrases are alright to use even in formal conversations. The second task is to evaluate whether the second activity aligns with the idea that language is semiotic. Headers and tails that appear in the dialogue function to help the speakers understand each other easily. In the context, we can say that the couple is trying to agree on buying something. We can then imagine speaker A as the wife and B, the husband. The wife is trying to convince her husband to buy something expensive, which she thinks they can afford and they really want to have. In her attempt, she says, ‘You know, I think…’ The header, ‘You know’ then serves to make the husband feel she is trying to earn his approval. In her next line, she says, ‘Well, I know…’ to express agreement, which again could please the husband in a real life scenario. To elucidate the point, let us try to imagine omitting the said headers, thus: A: I think we should buy it. It’s just what we want, isn’t it? B: It’s a lot of money, though. A: I know, but I think we can afford it. Without the headers, the wife seems to sound too insistent on what she thinks. Answering her husband with, ‘I know but I think we can afford it’ could press an argument if the husband thinks otherwise. Also, if we try to consider the culture in which the couple belongs, we would assume that the exchange of words between the two could result in an argument. The context of the dialogue is very important. According to Banks (2002: 35),‘Language cannot be divorced from the context which produces it.’ In the dialogue, the relationship between the couple serves as the context, along with the culture in which they belong. With consideration of their marital relationship and the Western culture that connotes the patriarchal power in the family unit, there is a need for the woman to gain the man’s approval before deciding on buying something, especially if it is expensive. Nevertheless, in the dialogue, the headers used are not for gaining approval but rather for achieving agreement because after all, the woman is also working (that is why she can call up the third party from work), which means she is of the same status as the man. Discussion of the interpersonal metafunction of the headers and tails in the dialogue is probably the most important part of the activity. It is therefore crucial for the teacher to spend careful time on this part before proceeding with any enrichment activity. The third move is to raise an argument whether the activity aligns with the belief that language is a system of probability. In the recommendations, the class will fit the headers and tails in the dialogue then discuss the functions of these words in the dialogue. As mentioned, these activities are very good recommendations insofar as SFL is concerned. However, there is no room for exploring probability of language because the students are restricted to the use of the given headers and tails. Probability may be emphasised if students are assigned to think of other discourse markers/headers and tails to be applied in the dialogue. Rationale The second activity by Billbrough aligns more appropriately with SFL than the first activity mainly because of the specific use of headers and tails. Citing these examples explicitly confirms their use in the native English register, hence giving an end to arguments regarding their use in pedagogical language. However, as mentioned above, the second activity does not promote the idea of probability of language. Probability can be achieved if students are asked to think of other headers and tails that would fit the dialogue, or if they make a dialogue using the given headers and tails. Still, this could be a little stressful on the part of the students because they are forced to think of situations where they could fit the phrases. Therefore, instead of making them think of other headers and tails for the enrichment activity, the teacher could ask the students to do a role play applying a similar context. SFL gives more weight to context in analysing the meaning and function of language. Therefore, it would be more ideal to focus on the situation instead of the explicit application of headers and tails. The latter would make the activity quite ordinary and boring, and it would even require the fabrication of a dialogue, which could lead students to apply their written language. As a better option, students can think of situations in which they can use the headers and tails or the teacher could suggest situations that students could role play and in which they will naturally use the target language. For example, they can make a pair and imagine themselves as business partners needing to buy a new equipment or property. This situation mimics Billbrough’s sample with the two speakers sharing the same professional status and purpose. Another situation could be an agreement between siblings on where to go on their summer vacation. Definitely, with the theme of agreeing and gaining others’ opinion, students will be led to use headers and tails such as those in the sample. Likewise, other forms of language register will be evident, including vague language, ellipsis, non-standard grammar, repetition, and so on. Such adaptation of the second activity exemplifies the probability quality of language. Furthermore, evidence of the said language registers will confirm the claims of system functionalists that the spoken native tongue is far different from the written language, considering the grammar, style, and function of specific phrases/terms. Additionally, the use of theme-related scenarios will further inform students on what expressions to use in order to achieve agreement with another, thus this kind of activity will promote ideational skills. Likewise, theme-related scenarios will help them illustrate their interpersonal skills as they use language to hesitate, agree, and persuade their partner. Moreover, those situations can also help students develop their awareness of textual messages, dialogue sequences, or language barriers that they would need to consider in attempting to gain approval or arriving at a consensus with another party. Another adaptation of the activity is to let them reflect on their own experiences or instances of using the sample headers and tails. On one hand, mere discussion of the headers and tails and their functions in the dialogue are enough especially for intermediate students. On the other hand, advanced students can get out of the box and apply concepts in real-life situations. Thus, asking students to pair up and recall instances when they use headers and tails will be beneficial not only for ESL students but for native speakers as well. The discussion will serve as a way for reflecting on real-life experiences and for making the learning experience more personalised, hence more felt. Conclusion The two sample activities for teaching language based on the SFL Model are demonstrative of the need to make students realise the difference between spoken and written language. The first activity is ideational in nature in that it explicitly shows how students could learn a language from what they encounter. Meanwhile, the second activity serves the interpersonal function more as it illustrates the function of language in the given context. Unfortunately, both activities fail to realise the probability quality of language because they are too limited to the text. Presenting theme-based dialogues where target language could surface naturally, along with discussion of language functions and context, are then recommended. As regards evaluation, students should be assessed based on their ability to make meaning through choice because that is the main principle of SFL (Halliday, 1978; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). Therefore, for the evaluation part, student learning should not only be based on whether they know how to use headers and tails or memorise the meanings of vocabulary terms. Instead, learning should be measured using a formative assessment such as a dialogue in which students are expected to use their knowledge of the target language to express what they mean in the particular context they are given. References: Banks, D (2002) Systemic functional linguistics as a model for text analysis. ASp, 34-35. Billbrough, N (2007) Dialogue activities. London: Cambridge University Press, 54-55; 157. Carter R A and McCarthy M J (1995) Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics 16 (2): 141-58. Carter, RA & McCarthy, MJ (1997) Exploring spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carter, R & McCarthy, M (2006) Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 5. Halliday, MAK (1978) Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, MAK & Webster, J (2003) On language and linguistics. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Halliday, MAK and Matthiessen, CMIM ( 2004) An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. McCarthy, MJ & Carter, RA (2001) Ten criteria for a spoken grammar. In E Hinkel and S Fotos (eds) (2001) New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 51-75. Shakespeare, W (n.d.) Sonnet MXVI. Web. Accessed 5 January O’Donnell, M (2011) ‘Introduction to systemic functional linguistics for discourse analysis,’ Web. Accessed 10 January 2013 Vygostky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press. Read More