蓝芳

Abstract：In this essay， overseas and functional studies of classroom discourse analysis will be introduced and reviewed. The studies are mainly reviewed from three perspectives：Conversation Analysis （CA）， Ethnography of Communication （EC） and System-functional linguistics（SFL）.

Key words：Classroom Discourse； Conversation Analysis （CA）； Ethnography of Communication （EC）； System-functional linguistics（SFL）.

中圖分类号：H319 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1672-1578（2018）12-0003-02

In the western countries， there have been many kinds of models of classroom discourse analysis. Classroom discourse analysis has been explored from diversified perspectives， some from the perspectives of linguistics， others from the perspectives of ethnographic approaches， still others from the perspectives of various psychological approaches. The next part is going to introduce and review three main approaches and methodologies， which include Conversation Analysis （CA）， Ethnography of Communication （EC）， and System-functional linguistics Analysis.

1 Conversation Analysis （CA） and Ethnography of Communication （EC）

In the 1960s， the famous sociologist Harvey Sacks proposed the Conversation Analysis within sociology model. In this model， great importance has been attached to the research method of close observation of groups of people who communicate in natural circumstances. However， CA approach changes the emphasis from building structural models to the close observation of the behavior of participants in talk and on patterns that happen over a long time and brought about a variety of natural data. According to lots of researchers of CA， investigation methods like surveys and questionnaires are not so reliable， because it is proved by many studies that what people will do in natural settings just overlaps with what they will do， but there are some gaps of differences between the two. At that time CA concentrated on some topics like turn taking and adjacency pairs.

Those who work in ethnography have sometimes questioned the claims of linguistic research， mainly because they suggest that a preoccupation with linguistic analysis can blind the researcher to other critically important dimensions of classroom behavior， including the whole range of non-verbal behaviors — routines， rules and procedures for activity， physical dispositions of participants， arrangements of furniture in the classroom， uses of gesture among other things （Christie 2002）. Research in ethnographical tradition of classroom discourse will be reviewed in the next part. CA is a useful and important framework for the analysis of classroom discourse.

In Christies （2002） review， two broad themes of research in classroom activity are put forth， that is， research of classroom activity as structured experience and classroom activity as social phenomenon. The first of the themes came from the initial interest in researches of language behavior in the classroom setting. Most of the studies were devoted to understanding of classroom activities as structured experience. The second broad theme concerns the interest in language as social phenomenon， involved in the negotiation and construction of meaning. This interest can be embodied the best in some notions like ‘situated meanings and identities.

It is Hymes who developed Ethnography of Communication （EC） in a series of papers written in the 1960s and 1970s. A variety of speech events including something like greetings and storytelling have been the subject of study of Ethnomethodology. In classroom contexts， Ethnography of Communication has examined such things as classroom activities including well-defined routines， distinct openings and closures， the seats of all the participants in the classroom， the methods of the participants moves and interactions happening during the school day， and so on.

Researchers of EC collect data with the methods of intensive， close and careful observation of classroom activities over a long time， and they manage to record lots of in-class activities， using instruments like audio- or videotape， conducting questionnaires and interviews， or gathering documents， students curriculum notes and examination results and so on. Researchers of EC will also conduct some interviews with teacher and students in order to make their observations more pertinent to the reality. Nevertheless， from the data collection and analysis procedures introduced above， it can be seen clearly that study from the approach of Ethnography of Communication really costs lots of time and calls for heavy workload over a long span of time. Whats more， over such long span of time， there may be different kinds of changes， which may impose more challenges on the reliability of research.

2 Functional Analysis

A group of linguistic researchers in the University of Birmingham initiated classroom discourse analysis within System-functional linguistics tradition. This group of researchers were led by Sinclair and Coulthard （1975）. In ‘An Introductions to Functional grammar， Halliday explores three metafunctions of the language from three perspectives： the ideational， interpersonal and textual meanings. Based on theories of Hallidays scale and category grammar， these researchers proposed a model for the depiction of talks between the teacher and the students by means of a hierarchically structured system of ranks. After lots of researches and studies， they published some works on the analysis of classroom discourse. According to Sinclair and Coulthards observations of traditional classrooms， turn-taking in teacher-student conversations can be regular under the teachers good control of teaching procedures. However， in contemporary classroom settings， students are offered with more opportunities to express themselves， the traditional turn-takings will vary accordingly.

A model of classroom discourse analysis was developed by them， which. Ranks at the discourse level are in descending order： Lesson， Transaction， Exchange， Move and Act. Although the integrated model adopted depends much on the whole structure is， virtually， Sinclair and Coulthard are deemed as important in this research approach because of the particular character they give to the structure of one of the Moves they figured out： Initiation， Response， Feedback move， known as the IRF. The following part is one example of this kind of move pointed out by Sinclair and Coulthard.

Initiation Teacher： John [nomination]， whats the capital of France [elicitation].

Response Pupil： Paris [reply].

Feedback Teacher： Paris [accept]， thats right [evaluate].

Over a long period of time， this Initiation， Response， Feedback move has been discussed enthusiastically extensively. Consequently， many researchers of educational background considered this kind of pattern used in the classroom to be restrictive for students and therefore they found fault with this teaching practice. It is criticized that similar moves like this have often ignored to observe the nature of the meanings in construction， the relative roles and responsibilities of teachers and students .

Breen and Littlejohn（2002） in their book Classroom Decision-Making discussed the importance of realizing interpersonal meaning in a classroom discourse. And they focused much on significance of negotiation in classroom teaching. They think in the process of interpersonal meaning negotiation， interaction between students and teachers can actually become interactive and procedural. For example， they suggest application of WH-interrogatives means that the teacher is inviting students to participate in a conversation while maintains a status of initiating this conversation. Breen and Littlejohns study pays more attention to the mood system and neglects other aspects of realizing interpersonal meaning， e.g. modality system and appraisal system.

Christie（1997；2002） employs SFL theories directly， in particular， Martins Genre Theory combined with Hallidays functional grammar and the sociological theories on ‘pedagogic discourse and creates a curriculum genre model. This model is developed from the sociological perspective. It is acknowledged that Christie has developed a model within the sociological tradition， which could be employed to examine how pedagogic discourse exerts its influence on creating consciousness. Because this discourse can act as both structured experience and social phenomenon at the same time. The model of classroom discourse proposed by Christie is multi-stratal in terms of the choices that it includes， these are， lexicogrammar， the two registers as semantic sub-systems， and the context of culture as represented by the schematic of a curriculum genre.

3 Conclusions.

Conversation Analysis is the study of talk in interaction （both verbal and non-verbal in situations of everyday life）. CA attempts to describe the orderliness， structure and sequential patterns of interaction， whether institutional （in school， a doctors surgery， court or elsewhere） or in casual conversation. EC is an integrative method/framework for conducting qualitative， interpretive research in a variety of settings， which reflects the aspects of communicating and is helpful to both practice and policy making in those studied sites. As can be noticed in previous SFL studies on classroom discourse in western countries， the interpersonal meaning encoded at the lexis level is for the most part underrepresented. More studies from this perspective should be conducted.

References：

[1] Christie， F. Discourse analysis： a functional perspective[J]. London： Continuum.2002.

[2] Eggins，S. An introduction to systemic functional linguistics[J]. London： Continuum. 2004.

[3] Halliday，M. A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[J]. London： Hodder Aarnold.1994.

[4] Sacks， H. Sociological Description[J]. Berkeley Journal of Sociology.1963.

[5] 高麗娟.教师话语在课堂互动中的人际功能[J].山东外语教学，2005（2）：63-65.

[6]李战子.从会话分析看英语口语课堂活动[J].外语界，1996（2）： 18-25.