Volume 29, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper proposes a number of refinements to the original theory of Exchange Structure as first conceived. It first offers a summary of the early ideas and considers challenges made by others. The study responds to these challenges through new analysis of multiparty discourse. The paper discusses revisions to the model based on these challenges drawing on the iterative analysis conducted and considers other points relevant to multiparty discourse. The data is drawn from transcribed video recordings of small groups of 4 to 5 year-old children’s peer-led dialogic interactions as they engage in role-play. In addition to the development of Exchange Structure theory, this new analysis sheds light on the nature of negotiation within multiparty discourse and the dynamics of negotiation by young children in this playful context.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Berry, Margaret
    1981a Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi-layered approach to exchange structure. InMalcolm Coulthard & Martin Montgomery (eds.), Studies in Discourse Analysis, 120–145. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 1981b Towards layers of exchange structure for directive exchanges. Network21. 23–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2016a On describing contexts of situation. InWendy L. Bowcher & Jennifer Yameng Liang (eds.), Society in Language, Language in Society: Essays in Honour of Ruqaiya Hasan, 184–205. Basingstoke: Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137402868_8
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137402868_8 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2016b Dynamism in exchange structure. English Text Construction9(1). 33–55. 10.1075/etc.9.1.03ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.9.1.03ber [Google Scholar]
  5. 2017 Challenging moves and supporting moves in discourse. InStella Neumann, Rebekah Wegener, Jennifer Fest, Paula Niemietz & Nicola Hützen (eds.), Challenging Boundaries in Linguistics: Systemic Functional Perspectives, 255–280. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2021 Inequalities in status: how do they show in discourse and what can be done about them?Lingua. 2611. 10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102924
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102924 [Google Scholar]
  7. Eggins, Suzanne & Diane Slade
    1997Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1961 Categories of the theory of grammar. Word17(3). 241–292. 10.1080/00437956.1961.11659756
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1961.11659756 [Google Scholar]
  9. 1985An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Halliday, M. A. K. & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2014Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th edn. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  11. Kimps, Ditte, Kristin Davidse & Gerard O’Grady
    2019 English tag questions eliciting knowledge or action: a comparison of the speech function and exchange structure models. Functions of Language, 26(1). 86–111. 10.1075/fol.18019.kim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18019.kim [Google Scholar]
  12. Martin, J. R. & David Rose
    2007Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause, 2nd edn. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Martin, J. R., Michele Zappavigna & Paul Dwyer
    2009 Negotiating shame: exchange and genre structure in youth justice conferencing. InMahboob Ahmar & Caroline Lipovsky (eds.), Studies in Applied Linguistics and Language Learning, 41–72. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Mukherjee, Sarah Jane
    2016a Children’s meaning making in classroom role-play at 4–5 years: A Systemic Functional Linguistic investigation. Milton Keynes: Open University PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2016b Recordings collected in connection with Mukherjee (2016a).
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Muntigl, Peter
    2004Narrative Counselling: Social and Linguistic Processes of Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.11 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2009 Knowledge moves in conversational exchanges: Revisiting the concept of primary vs. secondary knowers. Functions of Language16(2). 225–263. 10.1075/fol.16.2.03mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.2.03mun [Google Scholar]
  18. O’Donnell, Michael
    1990 A dynamic model of exchange, Word411. 293–327. 10.1080/00437956.1990.11435825
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1990.11435825 [Google Scholar]
  19. Rose, David
    2014 Analysing pedagogic discourse: an approach from genre and register. Functional Linguistics1(11). 1–32. 10.1186/s40554‑014‑0011‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-014-0011-4 [Google Scholar]
  20. Sinclair, John McH. & Malcolm R. Coulthard
    1975Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ventola, Eija
    1987The Structure of Social Interaction: A Systemic Approach to the Semiotics of Service Encounters. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Zappavigna, Michele & J. R. Martin
    2018Discourse and Diversionary Justice: An Analysis of Youth Justice Conferencing. Basingstoke: Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑63763‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63763-1 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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