Using SFL in contrastive work across languages: an example from

Spanish-English bilingual education

Corinne Maxwell-Reid The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Using SFL in contrastive work across languages: an example from Spanish-English bilingual

education

• The study: the effect of studying through English on students’ L1 (Spanish) written discourse

• Issues with contrastive work across languages: without & within SFL

Overview• Context of study• Contrastive work outside SFL (CR)

– Historical stages of CR & current position– Assumptions as to Spanish-English discourse

differences & how they are investigated• Contrastive work within SFL

– Advantages & difficulties– Differences Spanish-English: Theme

• The study:– Analysis & Findings– Possible explanations & avenues for future research

Context & reason for study• EMI/CLIL context: Spanish Ministry of Education

(M.E.C.)/British Council Bilingual Project – Primary sector 1996 ->– Secondary sector 2004 ->– Partial EMI: English, Social Sciences & Science/IT through

English

• Increase in CLIL – previous research in CLIL– English and other languages in Europe

• This study: compares argumentative texts written in Spanish by 24 EMI students and 24 SMI students (3rd year secondary) in terms of assumptions as to Spanish-English differences; today looking at half the texts (12 EMI & 12 SMI)

Popular understandings of Spanish-English discourse differences

Spanish• Complex• Indirect• Digressive• Values content >form• More/less personal?

English• Simple• Direct• Linear• Values form• More/less personal?

The three ages of Contrastive rhetoric (CR): beginnings & early years

• Kaplan (1988) on roots of CR: Firthian linguistics, Prague School, text linguistics

• The birth of CR: Kaplan ‘doodle’ paper, ‘Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education’(1966)

• Criticisms of early CR– Unclear methodology– Anglocentric

• Positives– Using ‘data’; Beyond the sentence– Students from other cultures not just bad writers

• Developing CR– Text linguistics– Advances in comparability, replicable; valuing of non-English traditions– Continued criticism: deterministic; producing static binaries; seeing

concrete, unchanging entities; with a deficit approach (Zamel 1997)

CR methodology: 12 steps + explanation (Connor & Moreno 2005)

1. Formulating clear hypotheses about the relationship between writing cultures and how textual meanings are expressed.

2. Defining the population of expert L1 texts that can be considered comparable and specifiying the basis for the similarity constraints.

3. Selecting a representative sample of the population in each writing culture being compared.

4. Identifying comparable textual units, e.g. (a) moves such as establishing the territory or creating a niche; (b) discourse functions such as defining or evaluating; (c) pragmatic functions such as requesting or apologizing; and (d) relational functions (i.e. coherence relations such as cause-effect or claim-support).

5. Validating those units of analysis as functional or pragma-discursive units recognizable by language users in each culture either through literature review or further research (e.g. through interviews with L1 informants).

•

5. (Cont.) This verification would allow the researcher to propose these units as language/textual universals, which can be taken as qualitative constants for the two languages compared and allow juxtaposition of comparable rhetorical phenomena.6. Quantifying the occurrence of these textual universals in each corpus. […]7. Devising objective criteria to describe the textual realizations of the universals proposed in the two languages. … designing specific criteria that do not privilege one language over the other. [..]8. Applying the devised analytical criteria to the description of the two corpora independently.9. Juxtaposing the taxonomies.10. Contrasting the quantitative results for each comparable qualitative category.11. Interpreting the significance of quantitative similarities and differences through statistical analysis.12. Drawing conclusions about the relationship between writing cultures and how textual meanings are expressed on the basis of the comparative results.

The present: CR to IR - Intercultural Rhetoric & underlying problems

• CR -> IR (Connor et al 2008): definition of rhetoric as ‘communication, shaped by situation’, ‘impact on consumer’; using overlapping theories/methods; writing as social construction; ‘everything exists between cultures’ (Connor 2008)

• text analysis in CR x-> ‘reliable understanding of the context’ (culture), text-context link often ‘no better than guesswork’, need ‘methodological link between text & context’ in IR (Li 2008)

• Methodology stage 13: explanation; provide richer description & focus on correspondingly smaller culture

• Explanations without underlying theory

CR investigations into intuitions of Spanish-English differences

• Complexity: words/sentence, t-unit, clause (S>E)

• Complexity: ‘subordination’ (S>E, sometimes E>S)

• In/direct; digression; valuing form v content: text structure/metatext (E>S); thematic progression

• Im/personal: unclear; overgeneralising

Thematic progression in CRPrevious studies use Prague School work in a range of ways with ‘theme’ variously interpreted, often conflated with topic and with no structural characteristic. They use variations on two main patterns:

• ‘repeated theme’ pattern (Constant Theme)• The cat sat on the mat. The cat was black.

• rheme -> theme pattern (Linear Theme) • The cat sat on the mat. The mat was hairy.

• English text is found to use both more than Spanish does; LT in particular

SFL tools• Complexity: within & between clauses; ranking clauses

& embedded clauses• Genre analysis: staging• Thematic progression• Theme analysis (Textual & Interpersonal, inc 1st person

projection)• Theme is the “point of departure of the message …

which locates and orients the clause within its context” (IFG3p64); Theme is located at the beginning of the clause and extends up to the first experiential element: “This means that the Theme of a clause ends with the first constituent that is either participant, circumstance or process.” (IFG3p79)

Key differences in Spanish-English language resources & issues for analysis: Subject & clitics

• Explicit subject less often needed in Spanish• Tengo hambre.• [I] have (1s) hunger – I’m hungry• Recogió el papel• ‘She picked up the paper.’ (SFGS)• Process is thus the first experiential element in many

Spanish clauses.• Clitics (weak pronouns)are bound to the verb;

orthographically separate when before the verb, but cannot act independently of the verb – can they be thematic independent of the verb?

Theme as 1st experiential element for Spanish: effect on thematic progression analysis

• Taboada (2004): Finite as experiential Theme – verb stem, not participant suffixes.

• Text with constant participant (suffix) but changing process (vb stem) analysed as having a high number of new Themes (Themes not mentioned before)

• Equivalent English text with repetition of Subject pronoun analysed as constant Theme

• Using English-based thematic analysis leads to the conclusion that Spanish text is more digressive

Arguments for extending Theme beyond 1st experiential element

• Theme as wave/ continuum of diminishing prominence; not discrete but discrete units needed for analysis; boundary depends on purpose (Berry 1996; Thompson 2007)

• Participant identities have special importance – often the most consistent thematic elements; needed to track method of development (Downing 1991; Lavid et al 2010; Rose 2001)

• Language-specific strategies other than sequencing to resolve the “competition for thematic status” (Rose 2001: 112): conflation & use of clitics

Conflation

• Conflation: two functions within one element, here process and participant identity in the Finite, as stem verb and suffix

• Tengo hambre.• ‘I’m hungry.’• Recogió el papel• ‘She picked up the paper’

Spanish Theme structure: SFGS’s response to the issues

• Experiential Theme• ‘She picked up the paper’ Experiential theme Rheme

Pre-Head Head

Recogió el papel

(pick up) 3s past the paper

Effect on thematic progression analysis

• She picked up the paper and went to her room.

Thematic field Rhematic field

Textual Experiential

Pre-Head Head

Recogió 3s past el papel

Y se fue 3s past a su cuarto.

SFGS Theme analysis• She picked up the paper and went to her room. Furtively, she

hid it in a drawer, …

Thematic field Rhematic field

Outer Thematic field Inner Thematic field

Textual Interpersonal Absolute Experiential

Pre-Head

Head

Recogió 3s past el papel

y se fue 3s past a su cuarto.

Furtivamente lo guardó en un cajón

SFGS: Absolute Theme

• The rest of the disk, honestly, I don’t know how to define it.• The rest of the disk, the truth, no know-1s how to define it

Thematic field Rhematic field

Outer Thematic field Inner Thematic field

Absolute Interpersonal Experiential

Pre-Head Head

El resto del disco, la verdad, no sé 1s Pr cómo definirlo.

Summary of analysis for school uniform texts

• Clause complexing & units• Text structure framework & signalling (two-sided

discussion; not explicitly taught)• Theme:

– Interpersonal Theme (1st person projecting)– Textual

• Thematic progression – main strategy per text– total no. CP & LP patterns

Student text prompt

At the moment, only students at private schools wear a uniform. However, some politicians also want public schools to have a uniform for their students. Do you think it is a good idea for public schools to have school uniform?

  Write a page for your school magazine on

this question, explaining your opinion on the topic. Include examples to help make your explanations clear.

The student texts (Spanish)EMI students SMI students

Total words 1548 2201

Total sentences/t-units 68/98 78/132

Words per text 129 183

Words per sentence/t-unit 23/16 28/17

Total ranking clauses 187 241

Total embedded clauses 70 106

Ranking clauses per sentence 2.75 3

Embedded clauses per sentence/clause

1.0/0.4 1.4/0.4

Clauses

EMI students SMI studentsNo. % No. %

Simplexes 22 32 8 10

Complexes 46 68 70 90

2-clause cl. complexes 14 21 22 28

3-clause cl. complexes 11 16 24 31

4-clause cl. complexes 14 21 13 17

>4-clause complexes 7 10 11 14

EMI student text: clause simplexes

3. Sin embargo también tiene sus contras.4.a. - El uniforme debe llevarse con zapatos, 4.b. por lo que en los recreos resulte incomodo

para practicar algún deporte.5. - La economía también influye bastante.6. - Algunas personas se sienten discriminadas

por el hecho de llevarlo7. - Con el uniforme no puedes mostrar tu

personalidad.

EMI student text clause simplexes: translation

3. Nevertheless, [it] also has its disadvantages.

4. a. - The uniform should be worn with shoes, 4.b. so in breaktimes it is awkward for doing

sport. 5. - Economics also have quite an influence.6. - Some people feel discriminated against by

(the act of) wearing it.7. - With a uniform you can’t show your

personality.

Text structureEMI texts SMI texts

Considers both sides of issue (for/against uniforms)

12 11

Uses 2-sided discussion as organisation

7 1

Signals 2-sided organisation 6 3

Organised partially by issue 0 3

Opinion (for/against uniform) found at:

beginning 4 3

end 2 1

both 2 5

Translation of EMI student text showing two-sided organisation, opinion, and signalling of framework

My opinion is that wearing a uniform has advantages and inconveniences,its advantages are the following:All the school will dress the sameso there won’t be any type of discrimination as regards the subject of clothing,since many people are discriminated against by fault of [because of] the clothing;another advantage is that thanks to the uniform it is more difficult that they classify you socially that is to say, by the buying power of your family.The inconveniences are the following:People can’t show their personality,since, your clothing reflects quite a lot your personality,and wearing the uniform everyone goes [looks] the sameso you can’t show it.All in all my opinion is that schools, be they public or private, should use a uniform,and in this way avoid a lot of conflicts among the students.

1a Mi opinión es que llevar uniforme tiene sus ventajas y sus inconvenientes,1b sus ventajas son las siguientes:2a Todo el colegio vestirá igual 2b por lo que no habría ningún tipo de discriminación

en cuanto al tema de la vestimenta,2c ya que a muchas personas se les discrimina por culpa de la vestimenta;2d otra ventaja es que gracias al uniforme es más difícil que te clasifiquen

socialmente, es decir, por el poder adquisitivo de tu familia.3 Los inconvenientes son los siguientes: 4a Las personas no pueden mostrar su personalidad, 4b ya que, tu vestimenta refleja bastante tu personalidad,4c y al llevar el uniforme4d todo el mundo va igual4e por lo que no la puedes mostrar.5a En defenitiva mi opinión es que los colegios, <<ya sean públicos

o privados>>, deberían incorporar el uniforme5b <<ya sean públicos o privados>>,5c y así evitar muchos conflictos entre los estudiantes.

Translation: SMI text

I believethat the best thing is not to make uniform obligatory in the public schoolsbecause it is supposed that in a public school one has more freedom than in a private.In many occasions is good the uniformbecause in this way you don’t have to choose the clothes the day before and waste time.But it would be good that the uniform was optionalbecause a lot of mothers preferthat their children wear street clothesbecause it pleases them more [they like them more]and other mothers preferthat yes they wear itbecause that way they save time and money

But for children under 12 years old it’s good,for those over 12 no because at 12 years old is when you start to change and to see the world in another wayand it pleases you [you like] to wear clothes that please you [that you like]and not always with the uniform.But on the other hand it is good that people wear uniformbecause, supposing that each uniform of each school is different, in this way is everything more ordered.But for me, sincerely, doesn’t please me the uniform [I don’t like uniforms]and prefer to wear my clothesthe clothes that please me [I like].If you wear uniformyou feel forced and less free than if you don’t wear itand I thinkthat since it is obligatory to go to school,that they let us chooseand a bit of freedom would be good.

SMI text

1a Yo creo 1b que la mejor es no poner uniforme obligatorio en las escuelas

públicas 1c porque se supone1d que en una escuela publica se tiene más libertad que en una

privada.2a En muchas ocasiones es bueno el uniforme 2b porque así no tienes que elegir la ropa el día anterior 2c y perder tiempo.3a Pero estaría bien que el uniforme fuera optativo 3b porque muchas madres prefieren3c que sus hijos lleven ropa de calle3d porque les gusta más3e y otras madres prefieren 3f que sí lo lleven3g porque así se ahorran tiempo y dinero.

4a Pero para los niños menos de 12 años está bien,4b para los que superan los 12 años no 4c porque a los 12 años es cuando empiezas a cambiar

y a ver el mundo de otra forma4d y le gusta vestirte con ropa que te guste. y no siempre con el

uniforme.5a Pero por otra parte está bien que la gente lleve uniforme5b porque, suponiendo que cada uniforme de cada colegio sea

distinto, así seria todo mas ordenado.5c <<suponiendo que cada uniforme de cada colegio sea

distinto>>6a Pero a mi, sinceramente, no me gusta el uniforme6b y prefiero llevar mi ropa; la ropa que me gusta.7a Si llevas uniforme7b te sientes obligado y menos libre que si no lo llevases7c y yo pienso,7d que ya que es obligatorio ir a la escuela,7e que nos dejen elegir7f y un poco de libertad estaría bien.

Themes

EMI texts SMI texts

Themes Total no. % t-units Total no. % t-units

Interpersonal

31 32 29 22

1st person projecting

18 18 12 9

Textual 32 33 84 64

Thematic progression• Main strategy per text: similar for EMI/SMI

– Half texts use CP, LP or, more commonly, a combination of CP & LP

– Half don’t• Total no. of each pattern:

• Analysis prior to SFGS: – main strategy: EMI using CP, LP or CP/LP more than SMI– Totals: EMI using LP more than SMI; totals similar

EMI student texts SMI student texts

Total % Total %

CP 23 23 35 27

LP 20 20 29 22

Summary of differences• As with previous studies of Spanish-English text: EMI students more likely to choose

– Dis/advantages text framework, & to signal that framework

– More simplexes, in a shorter text– More 1st person projecting clauses

• In contrast with previous studies EMI students’ texts– show fewer textual Themes, – thematic progression strategies are similar for each

group

Possible influences on the EMI students’ written Spanish

• English classes: indirect effect of writing task• Social Science classes: text types, expository

and explanatory texts; bullet points• Reading habits: time spent reading English;

preferences• Project effect? (group identity, status &

conformity)

Conclusions (not) to be drawn

• Limitations of study• Exposure to English

– English classes– Social science texts– Reading habits & attitudes– Project effect

• Globalisation & homogenisation • Methodology & language-specific analysis

References

• Arús Hita, J. 2004. English and Spanish structures: the textual metafunction as a contrastive tool for the analysis of languages. In D. Banks (ed.). Text and Texture: Systemic Functional viewpoints on the nature and structure of text, pp. 173-190. Paris: L’Harmattan

• Berry, M. 1996. What is Theme? – A(nother) personal view. In M. Berry, C. Butler, R. Fawcett and G. Huang. Meaning and choice in language: Studies for Michael Halliday, pp.1-64. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

• Caffarel, A., J.R.Martin and C.M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.). Language typology: A functional perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

• Canagarajah, S. 2002. Multilingual writers and the academic community: towards a critical relationship. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1: 29-44.

• Connor, U. and A. Moreno. 2005. Tertium comparationis: a vital component in contrastive rhetoric research. In Bruthiaux, P., D. Atkinson, W. Eggington, W. Grabe & V. Ramanathan. Directions in Applied Linguistics: Essays in honor of Robert B. Kaplan, pp. 153-164. Cleveland: Multilingual Matters.

• Connor, U., E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (eds.). 2008. Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

•Downing, A. 1991. An alternative approach to theme: a sytemic-functional perspective. Word 42/2: 119-143.•Kaplan, R. 1966. ‘Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education’. Language Learning 16, nos. 1 and 2, pp.1-20. •Kaplan, R. 1988. Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: notes toward a theory of contrastive rhetoric. In A. Purves (ed.). Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric, pp. 275-304. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.•Lavid, J., J. Arús and J.R. Zamorano-Mansilla. 2010. Systemic Functional Grammar of Spanish: A contrastive study with English. London: Continuum.•Li, X. 2008. From contrastive rhetoric to intercultural rhetoric: A search for collective identity. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (eds.).•Rose, D. 2001. Some variations in Theme across languages. Functions of Language 8/1: 109-145.•Thompson, G. 2007. Unfolding Theme: the development of clausal and textual perspectives on Theme. In R. Hasan, C. Matthiessen & J. Webster (eds.). Continuing Discourse on Language: A Functional Perspective, vol 2, pp. 671-696. London: Equinox.•Zamel, V. 1997. Toward a model of transculturation. TESOL Quarterly, 31: 341-352.