[PDF] [PDF] Language as a Function of Purpose - Higher Education Pearson

[PDF] Functions of Language - UniNE

liarities of that language Table 2 Lexical sources of auxiliaries with associated grammatical functions (= Table 2 2, Heine [1993:47]) Source Grammatical 

Functions of language in the social context - SHS Web of Conferences

Language as the most important means of human communication, as a social phenomenon performs a number of functions in the life of society The word « 

[PDF] ON THE FUNCTIONALITY OF LANGUAGE - Information about

These determine six functions: the context the referential function, the addresser the emotive function, the addressee the conative function, contact the phatic 

THE SOCIAL FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE - JSTOR

By social functions of language is meant the ways in which the language spoken by a group of people is related to that group's social position and organiza- tion

The Functions of Language: A Sociocultural View - JSTOR

THE FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE: A SOCIOCULTURAL VIEW MADELEINE MATHIOT PAUL L GARVIN State University of New York at Buffalo This article is 

[PDF] Language as a Function of Purpose - Higher Education Pearson

9 mai 2012 · major (macro) and minor (micro) functions of language that reflect specific rhetori- cal purposes and audiences (see Figures 1 1 and 1 2)

[PDF] Functions of language in the classroom pdf - Squarespace

Functions of language in the classroom pdf The concept of communication language teaching has been developed by the idea that grammar teaching alone is 

[PDF] fundamental principles of government french revolution

[PDF] fundamentals of computer programming with java pdf

[PDF] fundamentals of deep learning pdf

[PDF] fundamentals of finite element analysis pdf

[PDF] fundraising event marketing plan template

[PDF] furniture arthur il

[PDF] furniture assembly instructions

[PDF] furniture today top 100 pdf

[PDF] future of education ppt

[PDF] fyre festival expenses

[PDF] fyre festival to do list

[PDF] g code for speech therapy

[PDF] g8997

[PDF] galerkin finite element method example

[PDF] galois theory book

1 chapter 1

The Conceptual Frame

Language .fi.fi. is the most important sign system of human society.fi.fi.fi. [It] has its origins in the facetoface situati�on, but can be readily detached from it.fi.fi.fi. [It also] possesses an inherent quality of reciprocity that distinguishes it from any other sign system. (Berger & Luckman, 1966: 36-37)

How do we interpret the following sentence?

It's grammatically correct, yet it provides only a limited interpret�ation of what is actually meant. We don't know, for instance, to which house t�he speaker is referring - a critical piece of information. We also do not know to whi�ch particu lar photograph the speaker is referring. Traditional grammar, which focu�ses on "grammar" as "sentence-based," provides an imperfect underst�anding of the way in which language actually works in live contexts. A functional-rhetorical frame for language teaching provides us with a way of considering language in terms of how it functions in a range of contexts� and how it is used by speakers who have some purpose in using it. The contexts incl�ude imme diate linguistic contexts such as phrases, clauses, and sentences and la�rger rhetori cal contexts such as genres and modes within genres, as well as contexts related to the speaker/writer and listener/reader. The term "rhetorical" essentially refers to styles, again with reciprocity of the participants in mind. Traditional grammar and other sentence-focused grammars have typically not addressed the reality that all language always fits in and hints at larger structures of use such as genres, modes

within genres, settings, participants, and purposes. No sentence is truly meaningfu�l M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 15/9/12 9:46 AM

2

Chapter 1

Language as a

Function of Purpose

Objectives

The Central Concepts

fl

M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 25/9/12 9:46 AM

3

The Central Concepts

another discourse community. Initial proximity therefore depends on how �much the individual's "code" approximates the "code" of the di�scourse community he or she wishes to become part of. Note that although the continuum from HD t�o SEAD is given in a linear form, it is not intended to imply linear developmen�t. Figure 1.2 is a diagrammatic representation of the discourse communitie�s to which a hypothetical student might belong. Discourse communities are not� necessar ily contiguous for all students; however, they may be contiguous for som�e students. In this model, the school and work discourse communities (assuming the �student has a job) are shown as not contiguous. We may belong to multiple discourse� communi ties at any point in our lives, whether these are recognized or not in o�ur schooling, for we mark our place in this world through belonging to various groups �and pursu ing our lives through our activities and relationships within such group�s. We could have a diagram that includes ten discourse communities, or fifteen, or� fewer than five. I have adapted these macrofunctions from the earlier work of Jakobson �(1987) and Britton et al. (1975) as well as others to better reflect how we� might use the con cept of functions in the context of language and literacy instruction. J�akobson's (1987, pp. 66-69) original conceptualization of how we use language include�d the following

������ ��� A Continuum: From Home Discourse to Standard English

Academic Discourse

���� � �������� ������� �������� ���������S1S2

HDXX

XXSEADS3S4

DC 2 DC3 DC 1 DC 4

DC5DC1: Home/family discourse community

DC2: School discourse community

DC3: Friendship discourse community

DC4: Church discourse community

DC5: Work discourse community

������ ��� A Representation of Discourse Communities to Which a

Student May Belong

M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 35/9/12 9:46 AM

4

Chapter 1

Language as a

Function of Purpose

M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 45/9/12 9:46 AM

5

The Central Concepts

These macro and microfunctions, namely, the Expressive Function, the � Transactional Function, and the Aesthetic (or Poetic) Function, form a� functional rhetorical matrix that accounts for the choices we make of various lingu�istic ele ments depending on our intentions (or purposes) and on our intended pa�rticipants or audiences. Figure 1.3 illustrates how we might make use of these func�tions for instructional purposes - for the teaching of writing and reading as wel�l as language used to accomplish the various purposes.

������ ��� Rhetorical Macro-Functions and Micro-Functions

(Language for the

self, of the self)(Language to amuse, delight, enlighten, uplift, inspire)������������� ��������

(Language to inform reflect, or engage others)

Language to control

Language to persuade

Language to inform

Language to emote

Language to entertain or amuse

Language to reflec

t

Language to learn

Language to ritualize

Macro-FunctionTransactional(Language to exchange

information) Selected Micro-FunctionPersuasion (Information to affect behavior or action)

ActivitiesListeningSpeakingReading

Writing Presidential address to nation

Debate on school rules

Selected newspaper editorials

Letter to editor on why kids

should not drive before age 18

Focused Language StudyTools of Persuasion Connotation Generalization, equivocation, false analogies, appeal to

crowd mentality

M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 55/9/12 9:46 AM

6

Chapter 1

Language as a

Function of Purpose

fl fl ������ ��� An Integrated 8th Grade Course of Study

NARRATIVE

DESCRIPTIVE EXPOSITORY

Range of fiction, nonfiction, poetry,

Range of expository samples for reading

dramatic writing, in a variety of styles and writing, and to serve as models for for reading and modeling. writing.

Language Components

Language Components

to Focus on to Focus on

Indentify linking verbs

Complex sentences

Identify prepositional phrases

Complete sentences

Paragraph changes with dialogue use

Unity and Coherence

Unity and Coherence

in expository writing (applicable for focus in Narrative/Descriptive/Expository writing)

Adjectival modifiers

Adverbial/participle modifier

Simple/compound sentences

Varying sentence length and type

M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 65/9/12 9:46 AM

7

Key Assumptions

fl fl fl fl

Key Assumptions

fl fl fl fl fl fl fl

M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 75/9/12 9:46 AM

8

Chapter 1

Language as a

Function of Purpose

Assumption 1: Language in Response to

Communicative Needs and Desires: How

Language Serves Us

Assumption 2: Learners as Members of

Multiple Discourse Communities

M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 85/9/12 9:46 AM

9

Key Assumptions

facility located in another precinct and subsequently enters school, the� child's membership in discourse communities expands; the degree to which it expa�nds depends on whether these new settings include speakers from other multip�le dis course communities. As individuals continue to the workplace and college�, further expansion of discourse community membership is likely to occur. That sai�d, people typically (though not always) retain something of the style and flav�or of their home and local discourse community and come to differentiate their linguistic� and rhe torical choices depending on the discourse community in which they are f�unction ing at any given time. For much of our lives, we acquire and learn through absorption and imita�tion the forms of discourse that these various discourse communities prefer. �At times, depending on the distance between common usage in our home discourse com�mu nity and usage in a target discourse community to which we have decided �to gain entry, we might need more explicit instruction and modeling. This is oft�en the case with school discourse. Though largely forgotten now, Bernstein's (19�61) extensive and significant work in the 1960s presaged the current acceptance that� home lan guage will either advantage or disadvantage a child's ability to conf�orm to school language (i.e., discourse) practices depending on the approximation of� home lan guage (discourse) to school language (discourse). Nevertheless, the work of scholars such as Heath (1983) and Wells (1�985) indicates that children's linguistic and rhetorical facility in their� natural settings is rarely tapped by schools, which tend to stress linguistic and rhetori�cal confor mity and adherence to a normative standard. This in itself would not be �an issue if educators utilized what students already know about language use in mult�iple set tings and for multiple purposes and built on the strengths students brin�g as adept oral communicators. Properly channeled, the students' existing knowle�dge and strengths could serve as foundations for the more abstracted, often test�driven language uses in school contexts. In my discussion of the previous assumption, I alluded to the need to ma�ke knowl edge about language and discourse explicit. As children progress into mi�ddle and upper elementary schooling, they correspondingly need to understand that� the labels we apply to different parts of speech or the labels we use to des�cribe differ ent aspects of discourse are descriptive of the ways in which language i�s actually functioning. This knowledge reflects not only linguistic or rhetorical� knowledge, but also metalinguistic and metarhetorical language. That is, although we might not recognize and label them as such, we will naturally use nouns, verbs, pr�onouns, and other parts of speech as well as transitional terms between sentence�s or utter ances in our oral and written language. Our obsession with labels suggests that we have confused knowledge of the label with knowledge of use . Many of us also suffer from the delusion that not knowing how to label the bits and pieces of languages and the larger uni�ts into which it is organized (discourse) will prevent students from being eff�ective writers. Nevertheless, knowing the labels for language elements we use enables us� to

M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 95/9/12 9:46 AM

10

Chapter 1

Language as a

Function of Purpose

Assumption 4: Language Learners Need to

Be Immersed in the Kinds of Language They

Are Expected to Use as Effective Readers

and Writers

M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 105/9/12 9:46 AM

11

Key Assumptions

we discuss what is being imitated. These teachers typically do not diffe�rentiate between and . We discuss how many writers have imitated the style of others whose work they admire. Although this �is consid ered acceptable, the idea of their students doing likewise is not. This �anxiety is a result of the uncertainty many of us, experienced as well as preservice� teachers, have about our own skills as language users and a lack of awareness abou�t how we developed our own styles. A solution is to build into language courses f�or teachers some opportunities to practice imitation of various sentence patterns in� which they use their own content but mold it to fit the structures of the pattern�s being imi tated. What they will discover is how habitual language use becomes and �how fixed and inhibiting such habitual uses can become. My students also learn tha�t shifting into unhabitual language uses requires the modeling process and practice�. In the process, they discover how exhilarating it can be to acquire new forms o�f language use and how exciting it is to expand their linguistic and rhetorical repertoires.

Assumption 5: The Place for Labels

Having stated in my discussion of Assumption 3 that schools have overem�phasized labeling of elements of language, excluding labeling altogether is not t�he answer. If we were to attempt to describe a bicycle or some other piece of equipmen�t without the specialized vocabulary that describes its components, we would be en�gaged in a remarkably inefficient exercise. We would likely have to present a dia�gram and point to its various parts to ensure that the listener or reader can identify �the bicycle's components appropriately. Similarly inefficient would be an attempt to� describe the bits and pieces of language without labels that have been assigned to th�em. Labels are never meaningful out of context. For example, to label an utterance �as a sentence means little outside the context of written language or, if speaking, do�ing so in a style that resembles written language. A sentence is a meaningful constr�uct only in the context of other sentences that cohere into something larger than a �sentence, that is, in the context of a sequence of other sentences, usually found �in a paragraph. Alternatively, a sentence may be meaningful in the context of a response� to a sentence or other expression uttered by someone else. In informal spoken� language contexts, we frequently do not utter sentences in the strict sense of th�e word. Although sentences may be argued to be present in deep structure, at sur�face level we often use what are termed "fragments." The concept of surface structure and deep structure 3 is a useful one to help students see that even when something is not expressed on the surface, i�t is nevertheless present. Ellipsis is common in oral language, but in deep s�tructure, the speaker can retrieve what has been ellipted if pressed. I work with �this concept in my classes and workshops by having students examine transcrip�ts of 3

"Deep structure" and "surface structure" are terms that are �derived from generative grammar (Chomsky,

1956; Williams, 1999). They aptly describe the way in which language us�e is essentially an iceberg pheno

menon. That is, we express or articulate what is necessary, what is effe�ctive, what is apt, for any act of

communication, but we retain the sense of what has been omitted, which r�esults in our being able to

make sense in any string of expressed language. Briefly and simply, de�ep structure can be defined as the

underlying logic beneath an expressed utterance, that is, what is actual�ly heard or read (Williams, 1999,

pp. 144-145). While there is not necessarily a syntactic equivalence� between deep structure and surface

structure, there must be semantic equivalence, tested as this would be t�hrough applying transformational

rules (Williams, 1999, p. 145).

M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 115/9/12 9:46 AM

12

Chapter 1

Language as a

Function of Purpose

Applications

M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 125/9/12 9:46 AM

13

Conclusion

in sentence length and type. But the initial review or introduction of a�ny language element makes more sense when it takes place in a directly meaningful co�ntext in which it is naturally foregrounded (e.g., narrative foregrounds chro�nological development of events; exposition foregrounds reasoning, caveats, and ex�planation; and complex sentence structures that entail subordination are generally �more prevalent in this macrogenre than in the narrative macrogenre). Further reconfiguration of this course of study would entail identify�ing macro and microfunctions of language use and using these as a guide to� selecting textual material for reading and writing purposes under the genre headin�gs (Nar rative, Descriptive, Expository). Within that reframing, teachers would� also want to identify, or have students identify, specific purposes and audience�s. In the above contextualization of what was a course of study initially constructed in� discrete, separate units of study, we would thereby create a communicative frame t�hat will enable students to see how the different components actually fit toget�her and make sense of their writing and language study.

Conclusion

Teachers can utilize the following questions to help consolidate their un�derstand ing of the theoretical frame presented in this chapter as a way of groun�ding their own work in the classroom. In responding to the questions, they may disc�over the extent to which their assumptions about language, learning language, and� teaching language are based on sound knowledge about each of these domains. They �may also uncover how much their practices as teachers are based on what they� learned about language ten, fifteen, twenty, or thirty years previously, prima�rily in school, and how little of that knowledge was ever made explicit in their own edu�cation, that is, how much of that knowledge was acquired osmotically, through fr�ustrating trial and error. As important as this is, teachers are also encouraged to enjoy language �play, something that many teachers have told me they did not experience in the�ir own education. While many feel quite confident about themselves as readers� and writ ers, they are much less confident about how to explain language and di�scourse to their students. Through activities in which they can experiment with �their own styles, provide stylistic feedback to others, and stretch into language �play, they can reclaim some of the risktaking they exhibited a very long time ago - a� kind of risk taking that is critical if they are to help their students become effect�ive users of language whatever the mode (oral or written). Furthermore, language play of the kind described above enables both teac�h ers and students to see that richness in language use lies not only in t�heir ability to use complex sentence structures and elevated vocabulary, but also in man�ipulating even simple language in ways that enable them to engage deeply with the �ideas and experiences represented in that language. Excellent examples can be �drawn from a wide variety of literary sources, whether fiction or nonficti�on or poetry.

M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 135/9/12 9:46 AM

14

Chapter 1

Language as a

Function of Purpose

Questions for Refiection and Discussion

fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl

M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 145/9/12 9:46 AM

15 chapter2 Discourses are not mastered by overt instruction (even less so than languages, and hardly anyone ever fiuently acquired a second language sitting in a classroom), but by enculturation ("apprenticeship") into social practices through scaffolded and supported interaction with people who have already mastered the Discourse. (Gee, 2001, p. 527) We are surrounded by language; in other words, we are surrounded by discourse. 1 "Discourse" means any connected unit of utterance in which there a�re at least three participants: one or more speakers (or writers), the unit of utterance� itself as parti- cipant, and one or more receivers (listeners or readers). Discourse is�, in essence a 1

Cuddon (1991) provides the original meaning of the term "discourse"� as that which represents a "learned

discussion, spoken or written, on a philosophical, political, literary, �or religious topic. It is closely related

to a treatise and a dissertation." However, he adds, that in "ling�uistics, 'discourse' denotes a 'stretch of

language' larger than a sentence" (p. 249) and that in more rece�nt times, the "term has acquired much

wider meanings and much wider implications" (p. 249). Cuddon defi�nes discourse in terms of the latter

as "language which is understood as utterance (whether written or sp�oken), and thus involves subjects

who speak and write - which presupposes listeners and readers who, in a� sense, are 'objects'" (p. 249).

Discourse, then, can be perceived as "social practice," and the di�fferent genres and modes of discourse are

"differentiated by their intention" (p. 249). This general defi�nition will serve our purposes in this chapter

and book, although there is a vast body of literature and related fiel�ds of inquiry in which discourse is

extensively discussed, analyzed, interpreted, and theorized.M02_SOTE6575_04_SE_C02.indd 155/15/12 6:11 PM

16

Chapter 2

Discourse

Communities

and Kinds of

Language Use

Handbook of Discourse Analysis

fl �� �������� ��� �������� ���������� ��������� �� ������ ��� ��������� ��������

fl �� �������� ��� �������� ��� �� ��� �������� �� ���� ������ ��� ������� �����������

fl �� ������� ������������� ��� ���������� �������� �������� �� ��� ��������� �� ������� ����������� ��������� ����� ��������� �� ��������� ��� �� ���� �����

M02_SOTE6575_04_SE_C02.indd 165/15/12 6:11 PM

17

The Central Concept

purposes, the writer must develop reader consciousness to ensure that ot�her people are able to read what is written. If they intend to publish, writ�ers write for a readership - there is always an assumed audience. Readers select some�thing to read, whether an article, a note, a book, or a greeting card, assuming t�hat the text contains some intended communication, regardless of the ongoing and inte�resting debates about intentionality or absence of it in literary theory discuss�ions and regardless of debates on the essential indeterminacy of meaning in writt�en texts (Derrida, 1978). My intent in this chapter and book is to have instruction resemble the n�atural language and discourse acquisition and learning processes so that studen�ts will be provided with information and experiences that will enable them to: ■ Acquire and learn a variety of discourses and their utilization of diffe�rent linguistic patterns and structures through exposure and analysis, thus learning which linguistic patterns work most effectively for different g�enres and purposes.

■ Acquire and learn to develop competence in the use of a range of discour�ses through modeling and imitation.

■ Acquire and learn such discourses through trial and error and experimentation.

■ Gain mastery through using a range of discourses by practicing them in authentic contexts and in authentic ways through working both

collaboratively and independently to identify meaningful purposes and authentic audiences.

■ Develop proficiency through a blend of formal instruction (in the abs�ence of wide and deep reading) and writing and reading for authentic purposes f�or

authentic audiences. ■ Expand their repertoires so that they learn to speak, listen to, read, a�nd write in a variety of genres and modes within genres. Because of space constraints, I will illustrate these objectives with on�e kind of discourse (genre) and suggest other discourses, sometimes with exam�ples, to which similar patterns of practice can apply.

The Central Concept

As I noted in the introduction to this chapter, discourse assumes two ess�ential components: First, discourse assumes both single word structures and longerquotesdbs_dbs14.pdfusesText_20