When I first read Chapter 1 of Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide (2nd ed), I found it was practical and functional indeed. From our first introduced teaching method--lexical approach to genre, one theme is the focus: "real English" in the "real social world" expressed via communication. That's why terms like context of culture, context of situation sound quite familiar. It elaborates the definition of "field", "tenor", and "mode" concerning the context of situation. Meanwhile, the two linguistic levels as content level and expression level are shown by a figure clearly. (Butt, Fahey, Feez, Spinks,& Yallop, 2000).
However, I nearly forgot this is only the first introductory chapter of a book. Then when I started to deepen more, I got stunned. Just as Thompson (2004) states that students may be understandably daunted, not only by the abstruse explanations but simply by the amount of new terminology. It is true that I tried very hard to understand and distinguish between a Value and a Token, a Material Process and a Behavioural Process, a Range and a Goal. At the beginning it seemed clear but after a while it became confusing with each other again, which is quite disappointing.
According to Thompson (2004), "One important implication of the functional view of language is that context and language are interdependent."(p.9) Meanwhile, communication is bi-lateral, so we should The delicate analysis of grammar function is more theoretical. In practice, what we need to know is just to pay attention to what, whom and how to talk. After all, in social communication, the important thing is only to understand others and make ourselves understood better.
By the way, the concept "tenor" reminds one common question in listening comprehension test: What is the most probable relationship between the two speakers? Now I know why there is such question designed in a test.
References:
Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks., S., & Yallop., C. (2000). Using functional grammar: An explorer’s guide (2nd ed). Sydney: NCELTR
Thompson, G. (2004) . Introducing functional grammar (2nd edition), Oxford University Press, Inc, New York
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks, Chanjuan. I share your feelings about the rather steep and high mountain to climb to attain a working understanding of Systemic Functional Linguistics/Grammar (SFL/G)), let alone achieve teaching proficiency level. And I find that deeply frustrating, because I can see the virtues of the system and the need to use, to some extent at least, it in the classroom with my students.
ReplyDeleteLast night, I read Annabelle Lukin's account of her personal struggle and eventual success with SFL/G (1995)more than 15 years ago working under the AMES umbrella in Australia. I also read Burns and Knox (2005). Lukin did not turn from a catepillar into an SFL/G teaching butterfly overnight. Additionally, Burns and Knox describe a nine week long distance learning course they developed at MacQuarie University focused on teaching SFL within their TESOL Masters programme. A nine week course focused just on acquiring a good working knowledge of SFL/G would go a long way to helping me find my way forward in introducing this into my classroom. Beyond this, however, Lukin shows that she was motivated to transform her teaching because of a mandate from the National Level (under the AMES programme which was authorised under the "National Training Reform Agenda") to engage in a process in which she was fully supported including access to a personal mentor to help her get there.
I was, however, inspired by Lukin's description of her process, and I picked up a few ideas as well for how to work with this SFL approach.
I was also heartened by Derewianka's (2001) advise that we can see SFL/G as one tool in an eclectic toolbox of different grammars. This advice comes with a warning, however. Derewianka cites Brown (1980) who admonishes that this must be an "enlightened" eclecticism which engages "in an intelligent use of selected approaches built upon and guided by an integrated and broadly based theory of second language acquisition". (p.243).
Of course, that's the aim of the course that we're currently doing. My understanding is that we will eventually be looking at a "post method" approach. My question about this arises from my understanding that in the next semester we are required to take one approach and apply it in a real classroom context and keep a journal of our observations of how it works. My question is whether it would be acceptable to work from an eclectic toolbox of approaches, as Derewianka suggests. Or must we select just one approach, e.g. the lexical approach, in order to satisfy the course requirement?
Ka kite ano,
Mike
I forgot to include references to my comment on Chanjuan's post and since I could not edit my comments after posting, here are the references:
ReplyDeleteBrown, H.D. (1980). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prerntice-Hall.
Burns, A. & Knox, J. (2005) Realisation(s): Systemic-functional linguistics and the language classroom. In N. Bartels (ed), Applied linguistics and language teacher education, pp. 235-259. New York: Kluwer Academic.
Derewianka, B. (2001). Pedagogical grammars: Their role in English language teaching. In A. Burns & C. Coffin (eds), Analysing English in global context, pp. 240-269. London: Routledge
Lukin, A. 1995. Functional grammar in the classroom. In A. Burns & S. Hood (eds), Teachers’ Voices: Exploring course design in a changing curriculum, pp. 54-65. Sydney: NCELTR.