1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 10, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The categories of the functional-notional syllabus are inadequate because, like the speech act theory on which they are based, they recognize only the social function of language and not its discourse function. A further difficulty is that illocutionary acts do not map onto single utterances as this approach to syllabus design appears to assume. Communicative acts in interactional discourse function both as illocutionary acts (they have an intentional effect on another participant) and as interactional acts (they have a role in structuring the discourse of the interaction). This paper discusses attempts by various discourse analysts to model this fact in three different ways: (1) to conflate both types of function into a single analysis (John Dore), (2) to code all utterances for both types of function keeping the two sets of analysis separate (Willis Edmonson) and (3) to code the two types of function in a manner which relates them to each other in a systematic manner (Gordon Wells, Jim Martin). Problems with each solution are discussed, but the need for language materials writers to take a broader view of language function is stressed.

© 1987 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.10.1.04per
1987-01-01
2024-12-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/aral.10.1.04per
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abbs, B. and I. Freebaim
    (1979a) Building strategies. London, Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbs, B. and I. Freebairn
    (1979b) Building strategies. Teachers Book. London, Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Berry, M.
    (1985) Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In M. Coulthard and M. Montgomery (eds.) Studies in discourse analysis. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul: 120–145.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Dore, J.
    (1977) Children’s illocutionary acts. In R.O. Freedle (ed.) Discourse production and comprehension. Norwood, N.J., Ablex Publishing Corporation: 227–244.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Edmonson, W.
    (1981) Spoken discourse: a model for analysis. London, Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Fletcher, P. and M. Garman
    (1979) Language acquisition. Cambridge, C.U.P.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Hasan, R.
    (1978) Text in the systemic-functional model. In W.U. Dressier (ed.) Current trends in textlinguistics. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter: 228–246.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Hatch, E.M.
    (1983) Psycholinguistics: a second language perspective. Rowley, Mass., Newbury House.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Martin, J.R.
    (1981) How many speech acts? University of East Anglla Papers in Linguistics14–15: 52–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (1985) Process and text: two aspects of human semiosis. In J.D. Benson and W.S. Greaves (eds.) Systemic perspectives on discourse. Norwood, N.J., Ablex: 248–274.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Sacks, H. , E.A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50,4:696–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  12. Schegloff, E.A. and H. Sacks
    (1973) Opening up closings. Scmiotica8,4:289–327.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Searle, J.R.
    (1975) A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson (ed.) Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science VII: language, mind and knowledge. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Van Ek, J.A.
    (1976) The threshold level for modern language learning in school. London, Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Wells, G.
    (1975) Coding manual for the description of child speech. Bristol, University of Bristol.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. (1981) Learning through interaction: the study of language development. Cambridge, C.U.P. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620737
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620737 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/aral.10.1.04per
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error