System

A key concept within SFL is the idea of ‘system’ (hence Systemic). Language as semiotic, the ability to create meaning, is the result of interconnecting systems at different levels of stratification – context, semantics, lexico-grammar, phonology/graphology. A text is an ‘instance’ of language (product) that is made possible from language as a system (potential). The system-potential of language is therefore instantiated in the form of a text-product. On the other hand, however, the system is not a closed one. As the text unfolds through time (process) it also adds to, and affects, the system. System and text are not, therefore, separable but opposite ends of a cline. Halliday uses the analogy of climate (system) and weather (text).

Text and EFL

A text may be seen as both a product, or an instance of language in time, and a process, an unfolding of language through time. I think there are a number of implications of this for EFL.

Firstly, if we look at the text as a product then we must also consider the function of that text in relation to the listener/reader. In other words, what is the goal of the text? Why am I speaking or writing?

Secondly, it affects how text is treated in class. What is generally ignored in EFL classes is how text is also the result of a process – a realisation of choices made at other levels of stratification. It also ignores the importance of how the text progresses, or unfolds, through time and how, through the dialogical nature of text, this unfolding is affected by the writer’s (or speaker’s) perception of the audience. It also ignores the function of the text in relation to other texts within the culture. For EFL, it is important to consider text both as a product and as a process – to “think of the text dynamically, as an ongoing process of meaning” (H & M, p524).

Thrirdly, I  think it is important to consider the EFL lesson itself as a text. That is, the lesson is affected by the participants’ perceptions of the context in which the lesson takes place and what they feel is appropriate for that context. For example, in a Japanese context a lesson constitutes a ‘public’ space. As such, many students feel that the use of silence is a perfectly valid (or at least available) strategy for dealing with the potential loss of face that a foreign language environment, especially one with a foreign teacher, can produce. The lesson as text thus needs to be negotiated over time to meet the expectations of students, the instructor, and also the institution in which it takes place. It is also, however, affected by the wider cultural context in which it takes place. At many Japanese universities and colleges, for example, EVERY student graduates and as such the students do not view the lesson as a ‘learning’ context where participation is required but instead view it as a ‘public performance’ context where the only goal is attendance. The challenge for the teacher here is to re-negotiate the lesson-as-text. (See also King, J. (2013). “Silence in the second language classrooms of Japanese universities.” Applied linguistics, 34(3), 325-343.)

One implication of this I think is that the SFL conception of genre teaching might require a slight shift. Often it is taken to mean something like ‘the teaching of genres’ where texts like narrative, or recount are explicitly taught using the genre cycle developed in Australia in the 1980’s (for an overview see Martin, J. R. (2009). “Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective”. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 10-21.). That approach would be appropriate for a Second Language Learning context where learners are expected (and expecting) to become members of the target language community. For a Foreign Language Learning context, however, this may not be the case (see Ryan, S. (2009). “Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and Japanese learners of English”. Motivation, language identity and the L2 self, 120-143.) . Instead, it may be more useful to see the lesson itself as the genre and evaluate learners not on how well they produce an independent ‘text’ but on how well they are able to negotiate the demands of the lesson as it unfolds through time and interact with the participants in it.

Text and SFL (1).

What is a text? A text is basically “language that is doing some job in some context” (Halliday & Hasan, 1985, p10). A text may be written or spoken, long or short, but must be ‘functional’. A single sentence can not generally be considered a text. “I’m in the bath”, for example, is not a text but the famous dialogue here is:

• A: The phone’s ringing.
• B: I’m in the bath!
• A: Ok.

This implies that both spoken and written text is essentially interactive – just as a speaker has a listener, a writer has an imagined reader – and has a goal or purpose. It also implies that texts take place, function, within particular contexts, or register, and those contexts affect the choices made within the texts.

A text can be recognised as such through ‘textuality’. This is the external and internal factors that bind it as text. The first can be called its coherence, which has two parts. The first is generic coherence which gives the text a sense of completeness – we can recognise a staged conversation of ‘request followed by refusal followed by acknowledgement’ – and the second is register coherence – we know it is a casual conversation.

As well as this, a text has what is termed cohesion. This is what ties a text together internally. At first glance the conversation above does not seem to have any internal ties to make it cohesive but, looking more closely, we could say that both ‘the phone’ and ‘the bath’ refer to shared experience of household routines and thus join the two statements together (cf ‘a phone’ and ‘a bath’).

Intensive Reading

There was an interesting article in the Independent about intensive reading in L1 children and its effects on vocabulary acquisition:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/neverending-story-how-repetition-helps-a-childs-vocabulary-2220647.html

The main conclusion of the study was that viewing vocabulary repetitively in the same context, as opposed to those same items in several different contexts (for example, reading the same story several times or several stories once), promotes greater acquisition of those vocabulary items. There hasn’t been much research, as far as I know, on Intensive vs Extensive reading for EFL but this study might suggest some benefit to learners of repetitive reading.

What is Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)?

What is Systemic Functional Linguistics? Basically, SFL views language as a social semiotic, a socially situated resource for expressing meaning within a culture. The most important consequence of this for EFL is that language here does not proceed from an underlying, universal set of rules but is a negotiated set of choices that operates on, and is in turn influenced by, a number of different levels, or stratum. Here’s an example.

In the TV show ‘Friends’, the first line from Episode 2 is:

“What you guys don’t understand is, for us, kissing is as important a part as any of it.”

Just from this line, the viewer is able to make a number of assumptions regarding the nature of the situation and the participants in it. On a global level, the conversation takes place in a coffee shop between a group of late-20-somethings. Immediately, we form ideas of what kind of conversations take place in cafes based on our own experience and whether the conversation proceeds according to these expectations. This we could call the Context of Culture. This, in turn, influences the choices made by the speakers (and our interpretation of them) at another lower level. Here, we know it is a casual conversation between close friends and we know that they are not just talking about kissing. We can know this from the Context of Situation, or register.

Below these two contexts, we can also interpret the statement grammatically. We interpret the clause in three simultaneous ways (metafunctions). Firstly, the opinion is being presented as a statement of fact – there is no doubt or hedge or question. This is the Clause as Exchange, or Interpersonal metafunction. Secondly, kissing is being presented as being of equal, not part, importance to ‘it’ and this opinion is coming from a female point of view. This is the Clause as Representation, or Ideational metafunction. And thirdly, this point of view is being contrasted with a male one but the opinion itself, kissing, is presented as the most important part of the message. This is the Clause as Message, or Textual metafunction. These three together make up the grammar of the clause.

Finally, below all this, is the level of sounding, phonology. This is largely ignored in most EFL textbooks. The concept of ‘blending’, for example, is treated in EFL as an interesting afterthought of good pronunciation but, if you listen to the piece of dialogue above, the phrase “what you guys don’t understand” and “kissing” take approximately the same time. “Kissing” and “part” are also louder. In other words, by varying the sounding of the phrase various parts of that may be highlighted as new or important information and the phonology does, in fact, contribute a vital role for meaning.

What all this means for EFL, then, is that the ‘meaning’ of this dialogue is expressed at a number of different strata and that changing something at one level affects its interpretation at another. Changing ‘guys’ to ‘you people’ would affect how we view the relationship between the speakers. Changing ‘is’ to ‘kissing can be as important’ alters the force of the message. Similarly, varying the stress to ‘kissing IS as important’ highlights the polarity. My goal within EFL classes is to enable students to see language as a system of choice to express meaning.

EFL func.

This is a blog to record some thoughts on using Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) in the EFL classroom. I’m only an amateur on SFL from my own readings but I’ve found that using systemic functional concepts and approaches for EFL classes has given me the tools to be able to explain to students not just ‘what’ a particular language form is but also, finally, ‘why’ that form occurs in that situation.