SUMMARY

Ika Kurniawati Khasanah / 2201409032

Rombel  03

ASSIGNMENT 5

SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS

Introduction

Systemic, or Systemic-Functional, theory has its origins in the main intellectual tradition of European linguistics that developed following the work of Saussure. Regarding to a development of scale-and-category grammar, the term ‘systemic’ derives from the term ‘system’, in its technical sense as defined by Firth (1957); system is the theoritical representation of paradigmatic relations, contrasted with ‘structure’ for syntagmatic relations. In Firth's system-structure theory, neither of these is given priority and this perspective was maintained. However, systematic theory regards that the system takes the priority. The most abstract representation at any level is in paradigmatic terms and the interpretation of syntagmatic organization as the ‘realization’ of paradigmatic features.

Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL) is a theory of language centred around the notion of language function. SFL places the function of language as central (what language does, and how it does it) in the syntactic structure of language. SFL starts at social context, and looks at how language both acts upon, and is constrained by, this social context. A central notion is 'stratification', analysed in terms of Context, Semantics, Lexico-Grammar, and Phonology-Graphology. 

History of Systemics

            SFL grew out of the work of JR Firth, a British linguist of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, but was mainly developed by his student MAK Halliday. He developed the theory in the early sixties (seminal paper, Halliday 1961), based in England, and moved to Australia in the Seventies, establishing the department of linguistics at the University of Sydney.

            In child language development, Ruquaya Hasan has performed studies of interactions between children and mothers. SFL has also been prominent in computational linguistics, especially in Natural Language Generation, interpreted in some systemic generators, such as a multilingual text generator (KPML) by John Bateman, Genesys ny Robert Fawcett, WAG by Mick O’Donnell, and many others. 

Communication Planes : Language and Social Context

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics the oral and written texts we engage with and produce have their particular linguistic form because of the social purposes they fulfill. The focus is on the mutually predictive relationships between texts and the social practices they realise. Then, the interpretation of social context includes two communication planes, genre (context of culture) and register (context of situation) (Martin,1992:495). The context of culture can be thought of as deriving from a vast complex network of all of the genres which make up a particular culture. The context of situation of a text has been theorised by Halliday (Halliday and Hasan, 1985:12) in terms of the contextual variables of Field, Tenor and Mode. Language bridges from the cultural meanings of social context to sound or writing. It does this by moving from higher orders of abstraction, which is organised into three levels; semantics, lexicogrammar and phonology (or graphology) to lower ones.

Semantics is therefore concerned with the meanings that are involved with the three situational variables Field, Tenor and Mode. Ideational meanings, that are realised lexicogrammatically by the system of Transitivity, realise Field. Interpersonal meanings, that are realised lexicogrammatically by systems of Mood and Modality and by the selection of attitudinal lexis, realise Tenor. Textual meanings, that are realised by systems of Theme and Information, realise Mode. Thus, lexicogrammar itself is a resource for wording meanings, ie. realising them as configurations of lexical and grammatical items.

ASSIGNMENT 4

Ika Kurniawati Khasanah / 2201409032
Rombel 03

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

The term discourse is often made the same as text in language use. Commonly text is restricted to written form, while discourseis restricted to spoken one. However, actually they are just like that. In doing analysis of a text (Text Analysis), it needs linguistic analysis. The interpretation is based on linguistic evidence.  D’ Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) present a broader view of defining text as communicative event that must satisfy the seven following criteria: cohesion, coherence, intentionally, acceptability,informativity, situtionality, and intertextuality. However, Tischer et al. (2000) explain that the first two criteria (cohesion and cohorence) may be defined as text-internal, while the remaining criteria are text-external. Text Analysis are more concerned with the text-internal factors. Meanwhile, Discourse Analysis focuses its attention on the text-external ones, without disregarding the tex-internal one. Regarding to this view, discourse is more than a text.

According to Schiffrin, Discourse Analysis involves the study of both text and context. In other words, DA is how text relates to contexts of both situation and culture. DA is also how text represent ideology. Therefore, it can be said that discoure integrates the use of text and context in te use of language.

There are some definitions of Discourse Analysis since it is quite difficult to give an exact single definition of it. Discourse Analysis can be characterized as a way of approaching and thinking about a problem. Talking about DA, these are some definitions of DA provided by experts as follows:

            The study of discourse is the study of any aspect of language use. (Fasold, 1990: 65)

            The analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of language in use. As such, it cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independent of the purposes or functions which these forms are designed to serve in human affairs. (Brown and Yule, 1983: 1)

            Discourse... refers to language in use, as a process which is socially situated. (Candlin, 1997: ix)

It can be concluded that Discourse Analysis may be defined as the study of language in use. As explained earlier, it considers the context of situation and the context of culture in which the language is used for communication. So, the context here may be participants’ knowledge and perception of paralanguage, other texts, the situation, the culture, the world in general and the role, intentions and relationships of participants.

These main theoritical and practical tenets of the following are identified within Discourse Analysis: Pracmatics, Conversation Analysis, Interactional Sociolinguistics, Ethnography of Communication, Variation Analysis and Narrative Analysis, Functional Sentence Perspective, Post-structural and Social Theory, Critical Discourse Analysis, and Mediated Discourse Analysis.

Communicative Competence

Ika Kurniawati Khasanah / 2201409032

Rombel 03

Communicative Competence

The emergence of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has pedagogical goal to develop learners’ communicative competence, that is the ability to use the linguistic system in effective and appropriate way. Furthermore, this competence becomes a challenge to language practitioners since it requires an understanding of the complex and intergrated nature of the theoritical concept communicative competence. This term communicative competence was coined by Deil Hymes in 1972, as the reaction against the perceived inadequacy of Noam Chomsky’s distinction between competence and performance. Hymes (1972) defined communicative competence not only as inherent grammatical competence but also as the ability to use grammatical competence in a variety of communicative situations. In other words, communicative competence defined as the knowledge of both rules of grammar and language use appropriate to a given context.

Hymes’ conceptualization of communicative competence has been further developed by Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983). According to them, communicatieve competence is: “ a synthesis of knowledge of basic grammatical principles, knowledge of how language is used in social setting to perform communicative functions, and knowledge of how utterances and commuicative functions can be combined according to the principles of discourse”. Canale (1983) later expanded the conceptualization of communicative competence by including four competencies under the heading of communicative competence: grammatical competence (i.e. knowledge of the language code); sociolinguistic competence (i.e. knowledge of the sociocultural rules of use in particular context); strategic competence (i.e. knowledge of how to use communication strategies to handle breakdowns in communication); and discourse competence (i.e. knowledge of achieving coherence and cohesion in spoken and written text). Pragmatic competence is essentially included  in this model under sociolinguistic competence, which Canale and Swain (1980: 30) described as sociocultural of use.

Bachman’s (1990) model of communicative competence included three elements, namely language competence (comprises two further components: organisational grammatical and pragmatic competence), strategic competence, and physiolagical mechanisms. Organisational grammatical consists of grammatical and textual competence, thereby paralleling Canale’s (1983) discourse competence. Pragmatic competence consists of illocutionary competence and sociolinguistic competence, the former referring to knowledge of speech acts and language functions, and the latter referring to the knowledge of how to use language functions appropriately in a given context. Then, Celce-Murci et al. (1995) proposed motivated model of communicative competence. They divided it into linguistic, sociocultural, strategic, discourse and actional competencies. They started analyzing these components with the core, discourse competence which concerns the selection and sequencing of sentences to achieve a unified spoken or written text. Linguistic competence entails the basic elements of communication, such as sentence patterns, morphological inflections, phonological and orthographic systems, as well as lexical resources. Sociocultural competence refers to the speaker’s knowledge of how to express appropriate messages within the social and cultural context of communication in which they are produced. Actional competence involves the understanding of the speakers’ communicative intent by performing and interpreting speech act sets. Finally, those four components are influenced by the last one, strategic competence, which is concerned with the knowledge of communication strategies and how to use them.

Historical Background

Ika Kurniawati Khasanah / 2201409032

Rombel 03

Historical Background of Language Teaching

           

Language teaching has been changing each time. From the early approaches appeared, they experienced a shift as the development of  era. In language teaching, the role of syllabus is very cruial. It also shifted as the approaches used in teaching process. Regarding that, language teaching can be viewed in three phases up to the present:

1.      Traditional approaches (up to the late 1960s)

Traditional approches came to the first in language teaching. The purpose as the priority was grammatical competence as the basis of language proficiency was achieved. The traditional approaches introduced grammar explicitly. They directly gave the rule of grammar when introducing the grammar to students. Then, the students practice using it in some exercises. It is different with the inductive one which gives the students examples of sentences containing some grammar rules and find the rules by themselves. The methodology in conducting the teaching was through repetition and drills. By applying the approach, th students appropriately learn how produce grammatical sentences in any situation. The language skills introduced to the students in such ordes as speaking, listening, reading and writing. Some techniques used were memorization, question-and-answer practice, substitutional drills, and some others that were capable of speaking and writing practice. Through the traditional approaches the students would be asked to master such as grammar and pronunciation at the beginning of lesson.

     The Grmmar-Translation method, Direct method and Audiolingual method are the examples of traditional approaches. Or some sources mention Audiolingualism (in North America) and Structural-Situational approach (in the United Kingdom).

2.      Classical communicative language teaching (1970s – 1990s)

In the 1970s, people began to leave traditional approaches since they considered the approaches were already old. The mastery of grammar as language ability was questioned and considered not enough. Regarding that language ability was not just included grammatical competence. The shift took place, in which grammatical competence are needed to produce sentences grammatically correct, now there was attention to use the grammar appropriately for communicative purposes such as giving advice, making requests, etc. In communicative purposes the students are sued to know what to say and how to say it based on the situation, the participants and the roles and intentions. Therefore, they need what is called communicative competence. Whereas it is ususally not provided in teaching syllabus and method in the traditional approaches.

The term of communicative competence itself was not so simple as grammatical competence to achieve. Furthermore, communicative competence became the goal of language teaching beside grammatical competence. The question emerged how communicative competence develop in language teaching, that is through communicative language teaching. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) created a great deal of enthusiasm and excitement when it first appeared as a new approach to language teaching in the 1970s and 1980s, and language teachers and teaching institutions all aroun the world began to rethink their teaching, syllabuses, and classroom materials. Then, the mastery of grammar was not the major point in planning the course using CLT.

In CLT, it was argued that syllabus should identify the following aspects of language use in order to be able to develop the learners’ communicative competence:

1.      As detailed a consideration as possible of the purposes for which the learner wishes to acquire the target language.

2.      Some idea of the setting in which the will want to use the target language.

3.      The socially defined role the learners will assume in the target language, as well as the role of their interlocutors.

4.      The communicative events in which the learners will participate everyday situations, vocational or professional situations, and etc.

5.      The language function involved in those events, or the learner will be able to do with or through the language.

6.      The notion or concept involved, or what the learner will need to be able to talk about.

7.      The skills involved in the ‘knitting together’ of discourse: discourse and rhetorical skills.

8.      The varieties of the target language that will be needed, such as American, Australian, or British English, and in the levels in the spoken and written language which the learnes will need to reach.

9.      The grammatical content that will be needed.

10.  The lexican content, or vocabulary, that will be needed.

3.      Current communicative language teaching (the late 1990 to the present)

Since 1990s, communicative language teaching, with the term of communicative competence as the goal of second or foreign language teaching, was popular. Along with the development, it continued to evolve. Then, current communicative language teaching appeared. This approach has brought the new paradigms and traditions. CLT today refers to a set of generally agreed upon principles that can be applied in diferent ways, depending on the teaching context, the age of the learners, their level, their learning goals, etc. The following are ten core assumptions of current communicative language teaching:

-          Second language learning is facilitated when learners are engaged in interaction and meaningful communication.

-          Effective classroom learning tasks and exercises provide opportunities to students to negotiate meaning, expand their language resources, notice how language is used, and take part in meaningful interpersonal exchange.

-          Meaningful communication results from students processing content that is relevant, purposeful, interesting, and engaging.

-          Communication is a holistic process that often calls upon the use of several language skills and modalities.

-          Language learning is facilitated both by activities that involve inductive or discovery learning of underlying rules of language use and organization, as well as by those involving analysis and reflection.

-          Language learning is a gradual process that involves creative use of language, and trial and error.

-          Learners developtheir own routes to language learning, progress at different rates and have different needs and motivation for language learning.

-          Successful language learning involves the use of effective learning, and communication strategies.

-          The role of the teacher in the language classroom is that of a facilitator, who creates a classroom climate conducive to language learning, and provides opportunities for the students to use and practice the language and to reflect on language use and language learning.

References

http://ptrirat.wordpress.com on April 3, 2012

Richards, J. C. 2006. Communicative Language Teaching Today. Printed in The United States of America: Cambridge University Press