<p> INTERPERSONAL MEANING NEGOTIATION </p><p>IN THE TEACHER-STUDENT VERBAL INTERACTION </p><p>YULIATI., S.Pd., M.Pd., M.Ed ELT</p><p>(Semarang State University – Indonesia)</p><p>ABSTRACT</p><p>Interpersonal meaning describes the social relationship among language users, expresses a speaker’s attitudes and judgments. It also deals with acting upon and with others and is realized in wordings through MOOD and modality. Not to mention that it is most centrally influenced by tenor of discourse. These show that the teacher ability in negotiating the Interpersonal meaning is so significant in building talk or dialogue with the students in academic setting. </p><p>This study aims to reveal the role relationship among the teacher and the students of Senior High School 4 Semarang Year XII and the way the teacher negotiate her interpersonal meaning to the students. The design of the research was a discourse analysis concerning on the analysis of mood suggested by Susan Eggins. A transcript of the teacher and students interaction was taken as the main source of data. I analyzed the data by using Mood Analysis suggested by Eggins.</p><p>The results showed that most of the utterances produced by the teacher were in the form of command which means that the authority of the teacher was dominant. Besides, the teacher also tried to be equal with the students by using some declarative and interrogative types of Mood. These made the students respond well but not really elaborated her/his responses. </p><p>Familiarity in implementing Subject, Finite, and Modality was the main reason due to the problem of Interpersonal Meaning Negotiation. This leads me to suggest that in the foreign language (FL) context lexico-grammar cannot be taken for granted. FL learners need to notice the grammar and eventually acquire it. This can happen if the learning process encourages focus on form. This point should be the focus of teaching English as a Foreign Language.</p><p>Key Words: Interpersonal Meaning Negotiation, Verbal Interaction. </p><p>INTRODUCTION English Language Teaching (ELT) classes are frequently criticized for 52 too much teacher talking time and task was the only variable to affect insufficient student talking time. the amount of negotiated repair and Recent research shows that in ELT conversations produced more classroom teachers spend 70 percent negotiation than the decision making to 80 percent class time talking. task. The negotiation examined in this Unfortunately, most English teachers research was a general negotiation. In in Indonesia have not realized the this research, the intent of the importance of Teacher Talk (TT). interlocutor in responding to Moreover, there are few such studies utterances, whether s/he wanted to of TT, most of which deal with the respond the speaker’s feeling introduction and general (interpersonal negotiation) or the representation of western theories message conveyed by the speaker regarding Foreign Language (FL) (logico-semantic negotiation), was classroom and FL teachers (Achugar simply neglected. et al. 2007: 12). From pedagogical perspective, Published articles relevant to TT in numerous studies have shown the the main domestic foreign language effect that individual learner, task, periodicals or issues are rather and context variables can have on limited. ZHENG Li-sheng (2002) promoting opportunities for explores the relationship between negotiation. While some attention Teacher Talk and learner output in has been given to the effects of the the classroom. YAN Wen-jun (2002) individual learner variables like conducted a research about the ethnicity, gender and pairing, and to differences in questioning strategies task and contextual variables on L2 between foreign and Chinese negotiation, their meaning has been teachers. All these researches are far little researched, as far as I know. from perfect, the interrelationship Meanwhile meaning was becoming between TT and the English learner the core of negotiation because it remains to be further explored. becomes the main reason or Therefore, this study endeavors to intention for the speaker to make a systematic analysis of how negotiate. teachers talk to students in ELT classroom. This study focuses on whether the teacher engaged interpersonally in Many studies have been conducted language analysis based on functional to find the way people negotiate and linguistics perspective (for example, build conversations as well as Halliday & Hasan, 1989) that has acquisition and learning language. A given them new insights into the research by Bitchener (1999) learning processes. Interpersonal examined the effect of three Meaning describes the social individual learner variables (ethnicity, relationship among language users, gender, and pairing) and certain expresses a speaker’s attitudes and communication tasks (free judgments. These show that the conversation and decision making) on teacher ability in negotiating the the way in which advanced ESL interpersonal meaning is so learners (Japanese and Korean males significant in building talk or dialogue and females in monoethnic and with the students in academic setting. interethnic dyads) repair The functional linguistics communication problems and use the metalanguage and analysis skills the process of negotiation in their teacher developed gave new ways of language learning. It revealed that approaching the texts read and 53 written in the classrooms and language, and becoming conscious of enabled the teacher to recognize how the power of different ways of using language constructs the content s/he language, requires conscious is teaching, to critically assess how attention by teachers, and requires the content is presented in her/his that teachers develop their own teaching materials, and to engage knowledge about language. For students in richer conversation teachers, a metalanguage for talking (Achugar et al, 2007: 1). about how knowledge is constructed in language in their subject is a RESEARCH QUESTIONS prerequisite for making the link between the “content” and the The research questions formulated in language through which it is this study are the following: construed (Achugar et al, 2007).</p><p>1). How is the role relationship The metalanguage of systemic among the teacher and the functional linguistics offers tools for students realized talking about the role of language in interpersonally? the educational process as an integral 3). What does this study provide aspect of a pedagogy that makes the for language learning? valued ways of making meaning in a discipline explicit to students (Schleppegrell, 2004). The incorporation of a functional metalanguage into the professional development experience enables FRAMEWORK OF THOUGHT teachers to develop the means to reflect on language and subsequently Functional Linguistic Approaches to to reflect on the meanings and values Language Education constructed with that language. </p><p>Learning a language is a means to Metafunctions in Functional learn about the world, about the Grammar social relations we participate in, and about the patterns in which this Halliday developed four information is routinely organized. metafunctions, three of them show According to Halliday (1999), up in the clause column but the last language appears in three forms in metafunction does not show up in the schooling: in learning language (first clause column because it is not language or second language embodied in the clause but in the development), in learning through clause complex-clauses linked language (content matter), and in together by logicosemantic relations learning about language to form sequences (Halliday and (metalanguage). While the first two Matthiessen, 2004: 61). Those four of these may proceed to some degree metafunctions are as follow: without conscious attention to language itself, learning about</p><p>Table 1 Metafunctions and Their Reflexes in the Grammar (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 61).</p><p>Metafunction Definition (Kind of Corresponding status Favored type of Meaning) in clause structure</p><p>54 (technical name)</p><p>Experiential Construing a model of Clause as Segmental (based on experience representation constituency)</p><p>Interpersonal Enacting social Clause as exchange Prosodic relationships</p><p>Textual Creating relevance to Clause as message Culminative context</p><p>Logical Construing logical __ Iterative relations</p><p>The summary of those kinds of On of the most powerful aspects of metafunctions are as follow the systemic approach is that (Thompson, 1996): language is viewed as a source for making not only one meaning at a 1). We use language to talk time, but several strands of meaning about our experience of the simultaneously. These simultaneous world, including the worlds layers of meaning can be identified in in our own minds, to linguistic units of all size: in the word, describe events and states phrase, clause, sentence, and text and the entities involved in (Eggins&Slade, 1997: 48). As we know them. that teacher and students talk is also 2). We also use language to text which is modeled as the interact with other people, simultaneous exchange of these three to establish and maintain types of meaning. These three types relations with them, to of meaning or metafunctions can be influence their behaviour, to glossed as follows (Eggins&Slade, express our own viewpoint 1997: 49): on things in the world, and to elicit or change theirs. (i) ideational meaning: 3). In using languages, we meanings about the organize our messages in world, this involves ways which indicate how looking at what topics they fit in with the other get talked about, when, messages around them and by whom, and how topic with the wider context in transition and closure is which we are talking or achieved, etc. writing. 4). In using languages, the (ii) interpersonal meaning: clause complex-clauses meaning about roles linked together by and relationship, this logicosemantic relations to involves looking at what form sequences (Halliday kinds of role relations and Matthiessen, 2004). are established through talk, what attitudes interactants express to Strands of Meanings: ideational, and about each other, textual, interpersonal what kinds of things 55 they find funny, and chunks of the talk how they negotiate to together, different take turns, etc. patterns of salience and foregrounding, etc. (iii) Textual meaning: meanings about the messages, this The three strands of meaning are involves looking at summarized and exemplified as different types of follow: cohesion used to tie</p><p>Table 2: Types of Meanings in the Systemic Model (Eggins&Slade, 1997: 49) </p><p>Types of meaning Gloss/definition Example:</p><p>Ideational Meaning about the world, Conversation, expressions; representation of reality (e.g. topics, the French language: subject matter) cigarettes</p><p> interpersonal Meanings about roles and Conflictual relationship, relationships (e.g. status, intimacy, Supportive relationship, contact, sharedness between Provoking talk, assertive, interactants) less assertive</p><p> textual Meanings about the message (e.g. Rapid turn-taking: cohesion foregrounding/ salience; types of through ellipsis and cohesion) reference; foregrounding of expression/ idioms</p><p>Focus on Interpersonal Meaning : In the commodity being exchanged. The An Introduction to Functional second concerns the way speakers Grammar, Halliday defines take a position in their messages. interpersonal meaning as a strand of meaning running throughout the text In interacting with language, one of that expresses the writer’s role basic interactive distinctions is relationship with the readers or the between using language to exchange relationship between speakers, and information and using it to exchange the writer’s attitude towards the goods and services. A second subject matters (Halliday, 2000). The distinction is between demanding interpersonal metafunction is and giving. People can therefore concerned with social relationships as demand information or give they are realized in text, that is the information and demand or give interaction between the speaker and goods and services. These are the interlocutor. interpersonal meaning at the semantic level of language which will When people are speaking, they do be realized at the lexicogrammatical more than talk; they interact with level. language and use it to express interpersonal meanings. In fact, Meanwhile, sometimes speakers take interpersonal meaning covers two a definite position or stand in what areas. The first concerns the type of they say. They take a position or interaction which is taking place or assert a position and are prepared to</p><p>56 defend it in arguments. When dimensions: the status relationship speakers are definite about their enacted by participants, the proposition, the finite always encodes frequency with which they come into the time of the action in relation to contact, the degree of affective the speakers. This shows whether an involvement they feel toward each event has occurred, is presently other, and their sense of affiliation occurring, or is yet to take place and with each other. At the clause level, is obviously very important to argue if the major patterns which enact roles we are to argue about a clause. It is and role relations are those of mood, the subject-finite relationship which with the associated subsystem of allows discussion of the proposition polarity and modality. Mood refers to contained in a clause. In any patterns of clause type, such as discussion, argument or quarrel, it is interrogative, imperative, and the contents of the Mood which are declarative. Polarity is concerned with at stake. In addition to that, if the whether clause elements are asserted speakers want to disagree with or negated, while modality covers the another speaker’s positive range of options open to interactants proposition, they simply need to add to temper or qualify their a negative such as not or n’t into the contribution (Eggins&Slade, 1997). Mood after the finite. The analysis of Mood choices can In this study, I would like to see how reveal tension between equality and the teacher negotiates the difference as interactants enact and interpersonal meaning with the construct relations of power through students. This is so important to talk (Eggins&Slade, 1997). Thus, in know how the teacher negotiates order to describe the tenor among with the students since this is the the teacher and students, I analyzed point of the communication among the grammatical patterns of the the teacher and the students. In clauses or Mood Type analysis. addition to know how the teacher negotiates interpersonally with the The type of relationship between the students, this study will also find the teacher and students in this study quality of the teacher and students was like usual role relationship interaction during the teaching and among them in academic setting. This learning process. means that authority of the teacher was still paramount and dominating RESULT AND DISCUSSION issue. This was so common since this happened in academic setting. Yet, The Role Relationship among the the study was not only focus on that Teacher and the Students point. It also revealed the type of Mood used by the teacher in The systemic concept of tenor shows interacting with the students. interpersonal values of four main</p><p>57 Diagram 1. The Overall Clauses Produced by the Teacher and the Students</p><p>The diagram above show that the this study and as the evidence of my teacher dominated the teaching and finding which says that, generally, the learning process The total caluses role relationship among the teacher produced were 300 clauses and and the students are exactly the around 79% of them produced by the relationship between teacher and teacher. Meanwhile, the students students. More detailed information only produced around 21%. I display due to the power relation among the this diagram in order to give a general teacher and the students are description about the real situation of described in this chapter. the teaching learning process under</p><p>Diagram 2. Number and Type of Clauses Used by the Teacher</p><p>58 During the teaching and learing below, we could see that the students process, both parties, the teacher and also mostly used declarative to the students produced clauses. I respond their teacher. This proved separated the clause produced by the that both the teacher and the teacher from those produced by the students preferred to use this type of students in order to give more clause or mood. Yet, the declaratives detailed information due to the type used by the students were mstly of clauses which then ended up with elliptical declarative such as; role relationship description among them. 2 S : Morning.</p><p>The diagram 2 provides description of 4 S : Parjo…. the number and type of clauses produced by the teacher. Overall, the 8 S : Five or teacher produced 90 declarative six. clauses, 80 interrogative clauses, and 10 S : Telling 67 imperative clauses. Mostly, the story. teacher used declarative clauses. In general, this showed that the power 17 S : Legend, of the teacher here was very love story, fable, mystery. dominant since using declaratives show that the teacher was the one who gave the information and at the Those elliptical declaratives function same time put the students as the as form of their responding and one who received that information. supporting role to the teacher talk. Furthermore, from the diagram 3</p><p>Diagram 3. Number and Type of Clauses Used by the Student</p><p>In order to provide deeper analysis of Mood Types used by both description and anlysis due to the the teacher nd the students. role relationship among the teacher and the students, here I show the CONTRIBUTION OF THIS STUDY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING : Throughout 59 this classroom conversation, the Agustien, H.I.R. 2006. Competence- students and the teacher tend to Based Curriculum and Its exchange ideational meanings Practical Implications. (focused on lexis). Exchanges of Semarang. Paper. Unpubished. interpersonal meanings made were limited to yes and no responses. The Canale, M. 1983. From tenor established during the Communicative competence to conversations was mainly demanding communicative language and giving information with the pedagogy. In Richards and teacher taking the role as information Schmidt (eds.): Language and provider. This is caused by the Communication. London: complexity of the lexico-grammatical Longman. pp.2-27. system (Subject, Finite, Modality etc.) that realizes interpersonal meanings. Celce-Murcia, M., Z. Dornyei, S. Many students do not like Thrurrell 1995. Communicative interpersonal grammar; they do not Competence: like learning tenses, aspects and so A Pedagogically Motivated on, moreover to implement these Model with Content parts in their speech. Unfortunately, Specifications. In Issues in this area of the clause is the one that Applied Linguistics, 6/2, pp5- expresses interpersonal meanings 35. and, thus, the very means that establishes role relations or tenor. Derewianka, Beverly. 1995. Exploring How Texts Work. Australia: The findings clearly demonstrate that Primary English Teaching in the foreign language context Association. lexico-grammar cannot be taken for Downs, C. W, Smeyak G. P. & Martin, granted. Foreign Language learners E. 1980. Professional need to notice the grammar and Interviewing. New York: eventually acquire it. This can happen Harper & Row. if the learning process encourages Eggins, S. 1994. An Introduction to focus on form (Doughty and William Systemic Functional Linguistics. 1998). Besides, the use of Subject, London : Pinter Publishers. Finite, and Modality need to be implemented since the very Eggins, S. 2004. An Introduction to beginning of the study. Many Systemic Functional Linguistics (2nd students understand the concept of Edition). these but fail to use it in their London: Continuum. speaking since they are not well exercised. Eggins, S. and Slade, D. 1997. Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.</p><p>BIBLIOGRAPHY Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Achugar et al. 2007. Engaging Language Education Press. teachers in language analysis: Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second A functional linguistics Language Acquisition. approach to reflective literacy. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Journal of English Teaching: Language Education Press. Practice and Critique, 6(2): 8- 24. 60 Fairclough, 1995 CriticalDiscourse Quarterly, 16(2), 201-233. Analysis. Longman: London Retrieved July 30, 2007, from Gerot, Linda dan Wignell, Peter. 1995. ProQuest Database. Making Sense of Functional Malamah-Thomas, A. (1987). Grammar. Sydney: Classroom Interaction. Oxford Antepodean Educational University Press Enterprises. Neill. J. 2006. Analysis of Professional Literature Class 6: Qualitative Golafshani, N. 2003. Understanding Research I. Online. Available at Reliability and Validity in http:// onlineqda. hud.ac. uk/ Qualitative Research. The IntroQDA/ whatisqda.php Qualitative Report Volume 8 [accessed 07/16/07] Number 4 December 2003 Oppenheim, A. N. 1992. 597-607. Online. Available at Questionnaire Design, www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8- Interviewing and Attitude 4/golafshani [accessed Measurement. London: Printer 07/26/07] Publishers. Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as Richards, J. C. 1992. Longman Social Semiotic: The Social Dictionary of Language Interpretation of Language teaching & Applied Linguistics. and Meaning. London: Arnold. Beijing: Foreign Language Halliday, M.A.K. and C. Matthiessen, Teaching and Research Press. 2000. Construing Experience Through Meaning: A language Schleppegrell, M., Achugar, M., & based approach to Oteíza, T. (2004). The grammar cognition.London: Continuum. of history: Enhancing content- based instruction through a Halliday, M.A.K. and C. Matthiessen. functional focus on language. 2004. An Introduction to TESOL Quartely, 38(1), 67-93. Functional Grammar: Third Sutopo, D. 2008. Discourse on Edition. London: Edward Polygamy. Semarang. Arnold. Disertation. Unpublished. Thompson, G. 1996. Introducing Johns, Ann M. 1997. Text, Role and Functional Grammar. London: Context: Developing Academic Arnold. Literacies. UK: Cambridge Yuliati, 2008. Teachers Scaffolding University Press. Talks in SMA N 4 Semarang. Kern, Richard. 2000. Literacy and Semarang. Final Project. Unpublished Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Key, JP. 1997. Research Design in Occupational Education: MODULE R14 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH. Oklahoma State University. available at www.okstate.edu. [accessed 04/05/2010]. Lutz, J., & Fuller, M. (2007,). Exploring Authority: A case study of a composition and a professional writing classroom. Technical Communication 61</p>