chapter 1 Language as a Function of Purpose The Conceptual Frame Language . is the most important sign system of human society. [It] has its origins in the face-to-face situation, but can be readily detached from it. [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? I recognize the house in the photo- graph. It’s grammatically correct, yet it provides only a limited interpretation of what is actually meant. We don’t know, for instance, to which house the speaker is referring—a critical piece of information. We also do not know to which particu- lar photograph the speaker is referring. Traditional grammar, which focuses on “grammar” as “sentence-based,” provides an imperfect understanding 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 include imme- diate linguistic contexts such as phrases, clauses, and sentences and larger 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 meaningful 1 M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 1 5/9/12 9:46 AM 2 in isolation from a context. Words naturally embody references backwards and Chapter 1 forwards to other words in other sentences or utterances. To use even a relatively Language as a harmless-looking word such as a definite article implies that some other statement Function of Purpose has been or will be provided to enable us to determine the full meaning of the defi- nite article as used in that sentence. ➙ Objectives This chapter establishes a frame of reference for teaching English to students in middle school (grades 6–8) and high school (grades 9-12) English Language Arts settings. Establishing such a frame of reference grounded in sound theories about how people actually acquire and learn language in informal and formal settings is critical because we do not use language in a vacuum, although traditional grammar-based exercises seem to imply that we do. Traditional grammar instruction ignores some essential components in the process of language learning, whatever the age or level undertaken. These components are the role of purpose and how it influences the functions of language as used; the role of participants in any language-based interaction; the content of communication; and the subsequent linguistic, rhetorical, and stylistic choices we make. This chapter presents the reader with a functional-rhetorical frame for language use within a common range of purposes, assuming a common range of participants, and offering related linguistic, stylistic, and rhetorical choices that can be meaningfully evaluated in terms of whether or not they fulfill the desired purposes. Diagrammatic representations of the frame and its applications are also provided. The Central Concepts The primary and initially obvious contexts for language are speech and writing. The theoretical grounding for this text is influenced by semiotics and sociolinguis- tics, in particular Halliday’s seminal books Language as a Social Semiotic (1978) and An Introduction to Functional Grammar (1994). From Halliday’s contributions to our understanding of language learning (and those of others in the field of so- ciolinguistics), we know of the significant role that social and cultural contexts play in that process. Influenced by Halliday’s work as well as that of Britton, Burgess, Martin, McLeod, and Rosen (1975) and Jakobson (1987), I have provided a model of major (macro) and minor (micro) functions of language that reflect specific rhetori- cal purposes and audiences (see Figures 1.1 and 1.2). Figure 1.1 provides a model for locating students on a continuum from home discourse (HD) to standard English academic discourse (SEAD). This depiction assumes that HD is not identical to SEAD for all students but may be so for some students. A teacher may have students located anywhere along the continuum when the teacher initially meets them. The continuum could be used in a portfolio as a means of indicating where students are at the beginning of a school year, at the middle of the year, and at the end of the year. A student who is at the SEAD end of the continuum at the beginning of the school year is assumed to have acquired SEAD at some point in his or her education or through exposure during early childhood. The continuum may represent where any of us are when we enter M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 2 5/9/12 9:46 AM 3 S1 S2 S3 S4 The Central Concepts HD XX XXSEAD S = Student H = Home Discourse SEAD = Standard English Academic Discourse Figure 1.1 A Continuum: From Home Discourse to Standard English Academic Discourse another discourse community. Initial proximity therefore depends on how much the individual’s “code” approximates the “code” of the discourse community he or she wishes to become part of. Note that although the continuum from HD to SEAD is given in a linear form, it is not intended to imply linear development. Figure 1.2 is a diagrammatic representation of the discourse communities to which a hypothetical student might belong. Discourse communities are not necessar- ily contiguous for all students; however, they may be contiguous for some 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 our 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 groups. We could have a diagram that includes ten discourse communities, or fifteen, or fewer than five. I have adapted these macro-functions 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. Jakobson’s (1987, pp. 66–69) original conceptualization of how we use language included the following Figure 1.2 A Representation of Discourse Communities to Which a Student May Belong DC2 DC1: Home/family discourse community DC2: School discourse community DC3 DC3: Friendship discourse community DC1 DC4: Church discourse community DC5: Work discourse community DC4 DC5 M01_SOTE6575_04_SE_C01.indd 3 5/9/12 9:46 AM 4 functions: the emotive or expressive (i.e., the direct expression of the speaker’s Chapter 1 attitude toward what she or he is speaking about), the conative (i.e., how we orient Language as a our language toward the speaker), and the poetic (i.e., the set toward the message as Function of Purpose such, the focus on the message for its own sake).1 Britton et al. (1975) adapted these to the actual writing that students do and reformulated them as the Expressive Func- tion (language of the self), the Transactional Function (language that is used to con- vey information), and the Poetic Function (language for aesthetic purposes). I further adapted these functions (Soter, 1993) by making explicit the relation- ships between purpose, readership, and audience. The Expressive Function in my reconceptualization is essentially language of the self for the self. It is therefore informal, often colloquial, idiomatic, and private and typically invites little if any re- vising or editing. Typical of written modes that reflect the Expressive Function are personal journals, diaries, personal memos and notes, personal greeting cards to intimate members of the family or close friends, notes taken in class, and personal poetry in which the focus is on expressing emotions and where there is no inten- tion to publish the work or share it widely. Because the use of the Expressive Func- tion reflects private, intimate uses of language, we would typically not grade for correctness or the extent to which the work is polished. Rather, any grade would reflect process and effort rather than quality of the product. In contrast, the Transactional Function and the Aesthetic Function are seen as public rather than private uses of language. The primary function of language that has a Transactional Function is information-giving and -receiving. Criteria for eval- uating this function of language typically include clarity, accuracy, organization, use of logic and reasoning, and a revised, edited product. This function involves formal uses of language, suppressing of the personal in many cases (e.g., exclusion of the use of first person), and typically entails the use of rhetorical modes such as essays, formal speeches, research and technical reports, briefs, summaries, and abstracts. Often, an intended audience is pre-identified, and the writing (and speak- ing) is focused on that audience. The Aesthetic Function entails a specialized use of language for creative (i.e., artistic) purposes that essentially have a public rather than private audience in mind. As with the Transactional Function, there is a public dimension to this func- tion; that is, the user intends others to listen to or read what has been produced. The focus with this function, however, is not primarily on providing accurate facts but on imaginative uses of language for inspirational, reflective, and entertainment purposes.