Interpreting Student-Student Interaction a Systemic Approach.doc

interpreting student-student interaction: a systemic approachliao haiqingabstract: the present research employs discourse analysis as an instrument to investigate the interaction patterns of students in the classroom and see whether they are effective communicators or not. the research follows a three-part process: record-transcribe-analyze. a four-minute topic-based dyad conversation by two english majors was recorded and transcribed. in the final stage the systemic approach is applied to analyze the recorded data.key words: student-student interaction, systemic approach, mood choices1. introduction the aim of foreign language teaching is to develop learners communicative ability in a foreign language as effectively as possible. to achieve this aim, teachers conduct different types of communicative activities in the classroom. but due to the limited teaching hours and a large class size, teachers find it hard to monitor the students oral output. maybe at the end of the academic term they give students an oral test and mark them by a score. or students can take the national level spoken tests (tem 4 or cet 4 and cet 6) and then receive certificates which classify them by four levels of oral english performance among which three are passing grades: pass, good, exceptional while the last is fail. however, as efl teachers, we know the score we give to the student only gives a very general or superficial picture of the students communicative competence. if we want to gain a more comprehensive understanding of students communicative ability, we need to do more than just manage a test. an alternative way is to employ discourse analysis as an instrument to investigate the interaction patterns of students in the classroom and see whether they are effective communicators or not. until recently not much research has been done in this area in the chinese efl context. to fill this gap the present paper aims to analyze classroom student-student interaction discourse. although the task is time-consuming, the analysis will shed light on students oral language production. the research follows a three-part process: record-transcribe-analyze. a four-minute topic-based dyad conversation by two english majors was recorded and transcribed. in the final stage the systemic approach is applied to analyze the recorded data.2. the systemic approach to conversationsystemic functional linguistics, developed by halliday, sees language as social semiotic (1978/2001: 1). to apply this approach to discourse analysis, we will be able to 1) describe and quantify conversational patterns at different levels and in different degrees of detail; and 2) see how linguistic patterns enact and construct social identity and interpersonal relations. (eggins & slade 1997:47) the systemic approach views language as a resource for making three layers of meaning simultaneously: ideational (meanings about the world); interpersonal (meanings about roles and relationship) and textual (meanings about the message) (see halliday 1994/2000). as our research interest is in the effectiveness of the participants in the interaction, we will limit our focus to the interpersonal meanings, i.e. to look at what types of role relations are established among participants through dyad conversation. interpersonal meanings also involve looking at what attitudes interactants express to and about each other, how they negotiate to take turns, etc., but this would demand research independent of the present one. to understand how interpersonal meanings are realized by grammatical patterns, we need to study what types of clause structures interactants choose and how these clause structures are displayed within each speakers turn. according to eggins and slade (1997: 74), at the clause level the major patterns that determine roles and role relations are those of mood, with the associated subsystems of polarity and modality. mood refers to clause patterns such as interrogative, imperative and declarative. these patterns are closely related to certain negotiable elements of clause structure. polarity is concerned with the positive or negative aspects of the clause, while modality refers to the range of options for interactants to temper or qualify their utterances. 3. 1 analyzing on a coding sheet the transcript of the recording and transcription key can be found in appendix i and appendix ii respectively. a coding sheet following eggins and slade (1997: 108) is used to record the main features of each clause. the recorded items include:the turn number and speakerclause number, with * indicating incomplete clausesthe distinction between independent and dependent clauses with # marking dependent clausesthe subject of the clause (in parentheses if elliptical)clause mood: declarative, interrogative, imperative, minor; elliptical or full; plus (if elliptical), the number of the turn from which the ellipsis can be recovered and the list of all ellipsed constituents;negation, if anypresence of adjuncts (circumstantial, interpersonal, textual)table 3.1 presents a coding sheet for text the internettable 3.1 coding sheet for mood analysis of the internetturn no./speakerclause no.subjectmoodpolarityadjuncts1/s1iinternetdeclarative:fullinterpersonalii#itcircumstantialiiiideclarative:fullcircumstantial2/s2iideclarative:full: iiinternetdeclarative:fulltextual; circumstantialiiiwedeclarative:tagged3/s1iminoriiwedeclarative:full interpersonaliiiwedeclarative:full textualivwedeclarative:full vqqdeclarative:fullinterpersonal4/s2iminoriiwedeclarative:fullinterpersonal; circumstantialiiitheydeclarative:fulltextual; interpersonal5/s1iminor6/s1i#youiiitdeclarative:fullinterpersonal7/s2i(it)elliptical: 6(sf)c8/s1iminoriiitdeclarative:fulltextual;interpersonal iiisome peopledeclarative:fullinterpersonal;textualiv(somepeople)declarativetextual9/s2itheydeclarative:fullinterpersonal10/s1iminoriigood thingsand bad thingsdeclarative:fullinterpersonaliiiitdeclarative:fullivwedeclarative:full11/s2iminor12/s2isome boysdeclarative:fulltextualiitheydeclarative:fulliiitheydeclarative:fullivminor13/s1iminorii#qqtextualiiiittextual;interpersonaliv*they*interpersonal14/s2i(they)elliptical: 13(sf)p15/s1i(they)elliptical: 13,14(sf)pinterpersonalii*we*negativeinterpersonaliiiwedeclarative:fullnegativeivwedeclarative:fullinterpersonalvitdeclarative:fullviminor16/s2ieverythingdeclarative:fulltextual;circumstantialiiitdeclarative:tagged17/s1iideclarative:fullinterpersonalii#*iii*i*negativeiv*#i*v#ideclarative:fullnegativetextualvi*our life*18/s2iminoriiminoriiiideclarative:fulltextual;interpersonalivtheydeclarative:fulltextual;interpersonalvitdeclarative:fulltextual;viideclarative:fullnegative19/s1iminor20/s1itheydeclarative:fulltextual;interpersonalii*they*iiitheydeclarative:fullcircumstantialivtheydeclarative:fullvtheydeclarative:fulltextual21/s2iall of informationdeclarative:fulltextual;interpersonaliino onedeclarative:fulltextualiii(no one)declarative:fullivyou22/s1iminoriiminoriiiminoriv*some*textualv#wenegativeviwedeclarativeinterpersonalvii#youdeclarativetextualviiisomethingdeclarativeixwedeclarative:fullnegativex*we*negative23/s2iitdeclarative:fulltextual24/s1iminoriisome teacherstextual;interpersonaliiiwedeclarative:fullcircumstantialiv*the teacher*v(the teacher)declarative:ellipticalvi*wedeclarativetextualviiwedeclarative:fullnegative25/s2iideclarative:fulltextualiiideclarative:fulliiiwedeclarativetextualivthe teacherdeclarative:fulltextualvalldeclarative:fullviyoupolar interrogativevii*he*viiiitdeclarative:fullix*#you*textualx#youtextualxiyoudeclarative:fullxii#youtextual;interpersonalxiiiyoudeclarative:fulltextual26/s1ideclarative:fulltextualii*#you*27/s2iminortextual28/s1i*some schools*textual;circumstantialiisomecollegesdeclarative:fullnegativeinterpersonal29/s2iwedeclarative:fulltextual;interpersonal30/s1i*textualii#internettextual;interpersonaliiiitdeclarative:fulliv#itdeclarative:fulltextual;interpersonalv*i*negativeviiideclarative:fullnegative31/s2iideclarative:fullnegativetextualiiitdeclarative:fullcircumstantialiiiyouinterrogative:fulltaggedtextualiv*you*textualvitdeclarative:fullvi(you)textualviiyoudeclarative:fullviii*you*ixyoudeclarative:full32/s1iminor33/s1i*iiyoudeclarative:fulltextualiiiitdeclarative:fullinterpersonaliv*vyoudeclarative:fullvi#the thingstextualviiyoudeclarative:fullnegativetextual34/s2iminoriiminoriiiideclarative:fulltextualivideclarative:fulltextualvinternetdeclarative:fulltextual35/s1iwedeclarative:fullnegativetextual36/s2iwedeclarative:fulltextualiiwedeclarative:fulltextualiiiwedeclarative:elliptical:36(c)sfp37/s1iwedeclarative:fulltextualiiwedeclarative:fulltextualiiiwedeclarative:fulltextual38/s2iminor3. 2 quantitative summarya coding sheet such as shown in table 3.1presents either qualitative or quantitative dimensions of our data. table 3.2 summarizes mood dimensions of each speaker across the text as a whole. table 3.2 summary of mood choices in the text internetmood(clause type)s1 s2 . number of clausesincomplete clauses78 . 14 (18%) . 80 5 (6%)declarativefullelliptical 39 (50%) 2 (2.5%) 33 (42%) 2 (2.5%)polar interrogativefullelliptical 1(1.3%) 1 (1.3%)tagged declarativefullelliptical 3(3.8%) ? wh-interrogativefullelliptical - -imperative -minor 12 (15%)9 (11.3%)most frequent subjectchoicewe (=students) 18internet + it (=internet) 7i 6you (generic) 5you (=students) 3various 3rd person sg 33rd person pl 6 we (=students) 7internet + it (=internet) 7i 8 you (generic) 6you (=students) 5various 3rd person sg 73rd person pl 9negation 14(18%) 2 (2.5%)adjunctscircumstantialinterpersonaltextual52124 4 9 22modalization(i)probabilityhighmedianlow(ii)usualityhighmedianlow1011modulation(i)obligationhigh: directivemedian: advicelow: permission 2 1 (ii)capability710total no. of modalities20124. interpreting mood choices in the internettable 3.2 presents the grammatical differences of the two students across the interaction. the major patterns shown in the internet by the analysis are as follows:i) number of clauses we find both students produce almost equal amount of speech; neither of the two dominates the interaction. both of them make equal contribution to the interaction. ii) number of incomplete clauses this shows that although s1 and s2 produce almost equal amount of speech, s1 outnumbers s2 in incomplete clauses by almost three times. according to eggins and slade (1997) whose data is casual conversation by native speakers, many incomplete clauses from a speaker may suggest that the speaker “does not have to compete for the floor and also that he speaks more casually .” this interpretation also applies to our data here. both s1 and s2 seem to enjoy a good co-operation and do not need to grab the floor. they take turns just evenly. however, we find s1s case goes beyond that. by closer examination we find that most of the incomplete clauses that s1 produces occur when she repairs her talk. more specifically false starts take up 10 out of 14 of her incomplete clauses. lets take turn 15 as an example to illustrate the point:15 s1 (i)yeah just chatting. (ii)we dont have (iii)were not really talking about some some some emergencythings or others. (iv)we just talk (v)and itll takeus a lot of time.(vi)yeah. here in the second clause of this turn, s1 starts by “we dont have”, then she becomes aware that have does not go with the present in present or the present continuous tense of the verb in the clause. so she corrects herself and produces clause 3. in this example and other incomplete clauses s1 demonstrates strong abilities of self-monitor and self-repair, which makes her a conscious language learner. however, in terms of fluency, s1 is weaker than s2 because she produces much more incomplete clauses than s2. given the fact that both of them produce almost equal amount of speech, greater number of incomplete clauses from s1 gives one the impression that she is not linguistically competent in some cases while searching for appropriate expressions. iii) declaratives both s1 and s2 produce a high percentage of declaratives, with s1s percentage slightly higher than s2s. this suggests that the two speakers initiate exchanges by giving information more often than demanding information. this may result from the nature of the register variable of field, i.e. the topic of the talk. as both students have easy access to the internet, which becomes part of their everyday life, they know very well the advantages and disadvantages of it for students. this topic orients their exchanges to giving information, i.e. exchanging opinions, rather than demanding information. both speakers have very low use of elliptical declaratives (2.5% for each), which means, they support each other in a limited cases. here is an example:6 s1 (i)if you send by letter, (ii)i think it takes a longtime.7s2 (i)yeah, such a long time.in this example, s1 is talking about the inconvenience of sending letters, and s2 repeats part of s1s utterance to display attention to and agreement with s1. therefore, s2 assumes a responding and supporting role here. iv) polar interrogatives s1 does not produce any polar interrogatives while s2 only produces two, one full and another elliptical. this suggests that s1 does not tend to negotiate core modal issues of polarity but just focuses on supplementary issues of information. in the case of s2 we find the use of full polar interrogative in clause (vi), turn 25: “do you know how he graded us?” when she talks abut the management teacher. the typical function of polar interrogative is for the user to initiate an exchange by requesting information from others. but this function does not apply to the case here, as s2 immediately offers the answer. therefore, the function of polar interrogative by s2 is to check that s1 is following while s2 continues to give information. the use of elliptical polar interrogative is in turn 14 by s2. here are turns 13, 14 and the first clause of turn 15:13 s1 = =(i)yeah. (ii)although qq is very convenient to communicate with each other, (iii)but sometimes it just it just talk about some some boring things, (iv) theyll just say = =14 s2 = =(i)chatting?15 s1 (i) yeah just chatting. when s1 utters “theyll just say”, her tone is not falling, which implies that she is still unfinished. actually she is searching for the appropriate word. at this moment, s2 interrupts by the elliptical polar interrogative “chatting?” to help s1. through her requesting, she fulfills her supportive role in the interaction. v) tagged declaratives neither of the two speakers uses this mood choice in its strict sense. however, s2 produces three clauses which are not tagged declarative in form but function as tagged declarative. that is why i put a question mark in this category in the summary table. here are the two clauses:2 s2 (iii)we need to search for some information, some background of our texts or search for other materials, right?16 s2 (i)so, anyway, everything has its advantage and disadvantage(ii)and its up to us to how to deal with the good thingsand the bad things, right?31 s2 (i)but i dont think it wastes your time, (ii)anyway it provides you some recreations. (iii)therefore, you can relax, right?in these three examples s2 uses a rising tone “right” to finish her clauses. although there are no subject and finite as elements of mood tag, “right” performs the function of mood tag. s2 uses these three clauses wit